A critical history of the Athanasian creed. Representing the opinions of antients and moderns concerning it: with an account of the manuscripts, versions, and comments, and such other particulars as are of moment for the determining the age, and author, and value of it, and the time of its reception in the Christian churches

UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY

ἕω

qLooraomowm τ

THE LIBRARY
OF
THe UNIVERSIEY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES

A

CRITICAL HISTORY

OF THE

ATHANASIAN CREED.

BY

DANIEL WATERLAND, D.D.

FORMERLY MASTER OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; CANON
OF WINDSOR ; AND ARCHDEACON OF MIDDLESEX.

Φ Pew Edition,
REVISED AND CORRECTED BY THE

πα BR. KING, Μοὶ

LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD.

@xford and Hondon:
Pees PARKER AND CO.
1870.

Q

c

Ῥ δῷ 5,

Wot ἽἼςζ
͵

EDITOR'S PREFACE.

—————— 5 Ξ- Ξ 5:

HE “Critical History of the Athanasian Creed”
had its origin in Dr. Waterland’s controversy with
Dr. Clarke, and other Anti-Trinitarians, on the subject
of the blessed Trinity. First published in 1723, in
the interval between his ‘‘ Second Vindication of Christ’s
Divinity,’ and his ‘“‘ Farther Vindication,” both of
them directly controversial works, it yet is singularly
free from polemics; and it is only in the last chapter
that he thinks it well to answer the objections of
Dr. Clarke, who ‘ out of his abundant zeal to promote
Arianism had taken upon him to disparage this ex-
cellent Form of Faith.”

After an Introduction, in which the Author explains
the scope and method of the work, disclaiming any
pretence at originality, and declaring that it professes
to be nothing more than a careful digest, in a form
convenient for the English reader, of all that he had
been able to discover written on the subject, the
treatise is divided into eleven chapters, of which eight
are concerned with the history of the Creed, and the
remaining three with its substance, and its use in the
Church of England.

The first chapter sets forth the opinions of the chief
modern authorities as to the date and authorship of

1174699

iv EDITOR’S PREFACE.

the Creed, beginning with Gerard Voss, who published
his treatise, De tribus Symbolis, in 1642, and ending
with Casimir Oudin, whose Commentary on the Eccle-
siastical Writers appeared in its final form in 1722.
The great majority of the thirty-two authors whom
he cites are agreed that the Creed is not the work of
Athanasius; and most of them would assign to it an
origin in the Western Church, not earlier than the
fifth century. Eight of them ascribe it to Vigilius
Tapsensis, whilst no two are agreed in upholding the
claims of any other Latin writer to its authorship.
Dr. Clarke is alone in bringing it down to so late a
period as the eighth or ninth century, though Voss
and Dr. Cave agree with him in supposing it not to
have been generally received till about the year 1000.
In the second chapter, Dr. Waterland considers the
testimony of more ancient writers to the existence and
authority of the Creed. Rejecting the evidence ad-
duced from writers earlier than the seventh century
as spurious or irrelevant, he attaches some importance
to that afforded by a Canon which is attributed to the
Synod of Autun, in 670. The first unquestionable
testimony, however, is supplied in certain articles of
enquiry, preserved by Rhegino, Abbot of Prom in
Germany, and referable to the middle of the eighth
century. Thenceforward quotations from the Creed
are not uncommon, though the title Symbolum is not
applied to it by any author before Hincemar, Arch-
bishop of Rheims in the middle of the ninth century,

EDITOR’S PREFACE. Vv

and the appellation was not generally in use for some
three centuries more. Dr. Waterland quotes in all
thirty-six authorities in this chapter, ending with
Johannes Plusiadenus, in 1439. Most of them ascribe
the Creed to Athanasius, and none to any other author,
though Beleth mentions as a common view the theory
that it was written by Anastasius.

The third chapter is taken up with the consideration
of the ancient commentators on the Athanasian Creed,
beginning with Venantius Fortunatus in the sixth,
and ending with Peter d’Osma of Salamanca, in the
fifteenth century. The first of these is the most im-
portant, proving the existence of the Creed at an
earlier period than any other evidence which we
possess: insomuch that Muratori erroneously supposed
Fortunatus to have been himself the author.

The fourth chapter contains an account of the va-
rious manuscripts of the Athanasian Creed which Dr.
Waterland could trace. The earliest of these is quoted
by Bishop Usher as belonging to the end of the sixth
century ; but this, as well as the Manuscript of reves,
referred to the middle of the seventh century, was
already lost in the time of Dr. Waterland ; so that the
earliest manuscript then known to exist was that in
the Ambrosian Library at Milan, belonging to the end
of the seventh century. Between that time and the
end of the eleventh century, twenty-two manuscripts
are described, most of them being attached to Psalters,
mainly of the Gallican version. This chapter closes

v1 EDITOR’S PREFACE.

with an account of the principal Latin versions of the
Psalter, severally known as the Italic, Gallican, Ro-
man, and Hebraic.

The fifth chapter is occupied with a discussion of
the ancient versions of the Creed, among which, adopt-
ing the view that Latin was its original language,
Dr. Waterland includes the Greek manuscripts. The
correctness of this opinion is confirmed by the fact
that these do not rank early even among the ver-
sions; no copy being known of a date previous to
the middle of the fourteenth century. The earliest
version of which any trace is to be found was in the
Lingua Romana, prevalent in France in the middle of
the ninth century: but the earliest extant is in German,
in the Imperial Library at Vienna, and is referred by
Dr. Waterland to the year 870. Of the following
century there are Anglo-Saxon versions, but none of
those in French, properly so called, reach higher than
the eleventh century. Of the date of the versions in
other languages, Dr. Waterland had no information on
which it was possible to form an estimate.

From the foregoing evidence, Dr. Waterland argues,
in the sixth chapter, that the Creed was received into
the Gallican Church as early as the middle of the sixth
century. That it was known in Spain within a cen-
tury after this is clear, from its being quoted in the
Canons of the Fourth Council of Toledo, held in 633 ;
and the general affinity between the French and Spa-
nish Liturgies would lead us to suppose that it pro-

EDITOR'S PREFACE. Vii

bably then formed a recognised clement in the Spanish
services. In Germany it was certainly received in 787,
perhaps some years before: while in England we can
trace it as early as 799, when considerable portions of
it were quoted in a profession of faith made by Dene-
bert, Bishop of Worcester. The date of its reception
in Italy is very doubtful, and though inclined to trace
it to the conquest of Lombardy by Charlemagne, yet
Dr. Waterland does not venture to insist on an earlier
date than 880 for its regular introduction into the
Italian Liturgies. The Roman Church was the last to
adopt it among the Western Christians; and we can-
not prove that it was admitted into any Roman Liturgy
earlier than the Psalter of King Athelstan in 9380. The
fact of its admission into the Greek and Oriental
Churches has been questioned altogether, but it ap-
pears probable, that, though unknown to the Greek
Churches in Africa and Asia, yet that it had, for some
little time, been accepted by the main body of the
Greeks in Europe, with alterations in the Article con-
cerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost.

From a consideration of all this evidence Dr. Water-
land concludes, in the seventh chapter, that the Athana-
sian Creed was probably composed in Gaul: and as it
was in sufficient repute for a Comment to be written on
it about the year 570, it may fairly be presumed to be
from ἃ century to a century and a-half more ancient
than that date. But, from internal evidence, he con-
ceives that we can fix the time of its composition with

vill EDITOR’S PREFACE.

much greater nicety. It is obviously later than the
rise of the heresy of Apollinarius, from the precision
with which his tenets are refuted on the subject of the
Incarnation ; and it is most probably subsequent to the
publication of St. Augustine’s work, De Trinitate, from
the use of expressions first worked out in that treatise.
This would bring it down to the year 420, nearly fifty
years after Athanasius’s death. On the other hand,
the absence of any direct refutation of Eutyches, and
even the admission of equivocal expressions which
might be interpreted as favouring his views, would
mark the Creed as earlier than his condemnation at
Chalcedon in 451. Similarly, its language seems to
place it even before the condemnation of Nestorius at
Ephesus in 431; so that its composition is brought
within the compass of the ten years between 420 and
430; and as we know that St. Augustine, whose writ-
ings had manifestly an important influence upon it,
was in close communication with the Church in Gaul
during the latter half of this decade, we may ulti-
mately fix its date, with great probability, to that
time.

After determining the time and place of the com-
position of the Creed, Dr. Waterland proceeds, in the
eighth chapter, to determine the question of its author-
ship. This he decides in favour of Hilary of Arles, as
best fulfilling the requisite conditions of time, place,
capacity, and authority in the Church. He is also
known to have been an admirer of St. Augustine; and

EDITOR'S PREFACE. ix

is said to have written an ‘‘ admirable exposition of the
Creed,” of which we have no trace, unless we hold it
to be the work in question. The style, moreover, and
tenor of his other writings, favour the hypothesis,
which is not overthrown by the only objections which
have been advanced against it.

The ninth chapter consists simply of the Creed itself,
in the original Latin text, supported by passages from
authorities of the fourth and fifth centuries, mainly
from the works of St. Augustine. To this has been
added, in the present edition, an Appendix, comprising
passages from the earlier Fathers, setting forth the
same doctrines that are stated in the Creed.

The tenth chapter contains Dr. Waterland’s own
commentary on the Creed, in which he briefly shews
the origin, scope, and meaning of each several Article.
He explains the damnatory clauses in the moderate
sense In which they were accepted even by the leading
Nonconformist Divines of his own day; and is par-
ticularly felicitous in his exposition of that portion of
the Creed which declares each Person of the blessed
Trinity to be encomprehensible, eternal, §¢., and yet the
whole to be not Three, but One.

So far the treatise has been purely didactic, but in
the eleventh chapter it assumes a controversial form,
being occupied with the refutation of the objections
brought by Dr. Clarke to its use in our services. In
the course of his reply, Dr. Waterland takes occasion
to set forth the necessity of Creeds in general, and

Ὡς EDITOR’S PREFACE.

especially the need of gradually expanding the confes-
sions of our faith, to meet the errors gradually intro-
duced into the world.

At the end of the whole treatise he reprints the
work of Venantius Fortunatus, already referred to as
the earliest commentary on the Athanasian Creed.

The present edition is based upon the second, pub-
lished by the author in 1727. The treatise has been
previously reprinted in the several editions of the col-
lected works of Dr. Waterland; and in a separate form
in 1850 by the Society for Promoting Christian Know-
ledge. The references have now, so far as possible,
been verified and rendered more complete ; and besides
the Appendix to the ninth chapter, a list of the editions
used for reference is added by the present editor. Ob-
solete and antiquated modes of spelling have been
modernized, but in other respects the work is repro-
duced as it issued finally from its Author’s hands.

Sr. PETER’S-IN-THE- East, OXFORD,
June 24th, 1870.

Α
ΒΓ ΤΤΙΓΟ ΑΙ, HISTORY

OF THE

PeTeANASIAN CREED.

REPRESENTING THE OPINIONS or

ANTIENTS and MODERNS
CON CERNING. LT:

With an Account of the MANUSCRIPTS, VERSIONS,
and COMMENTS, and such other particulars as are of
moment for the determining the Age, and Author, and
Value of tt, and the Time of its Reception in the Chris-
tian Churches.

εὐ ΧΕΙ WATERLAND, DP.

CHANCELLOR of the CHURCH of YORK, and Chaplain
an Ordinary to His MAJESTY.

DAE SECOND EDITION
Corrected and Improv a.

CAMBRIDGE:

Printed at the UNIVERSITY-PREsS, for CORN. CROWNFIELD,
Printer to the UNIVERSITY : And are to be Sold by J. KNap-
TON, and R. KNApPLockK, Booksellers in ZOVDOWN. 1728.

TO HIS GRACE

WHEEL 7 23.175.

LORD ARCHBISHOP OF VORK,

PRIMATE OF ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN.

My Lorp,

I Am desirous of sending these papers abroad under
your Grace’s name, in confidence you will be a Patron to
them, as you have been to the Author. I would make their
way short and easy to the publick esteem, by introducing
them first into your Graces acquaintance and good opi-
nion; which, if they have once the honour to obtain, I
may then be assured that they will be both useful to the
world and acceptable with all good men; the height of my
ambition.

The subject, my Lord, is the Athanasian Creed, the
most accurate system of the Athanasian, that 18, the Chris-
tian Faith, of which your Grace ts, by your station and
character, by duty and office, and, what is more, by in-
clination and principle, and real services, the watchful
guardian and preserver.

The happy fruits of it are visible in the slow and in-
considerable progress that the new heresy has been able to
make within your province, where it died, in a manner,
as it first arose, and no sooner began to lift up its head

XIV THE DEDICATION.

but sunk down again in shame and confusion: as vf the
plenty of good seed sown had left no room for tares,
or they could take no root in a soil so well. cultivated.

While your Grace is promoting the honour and inter-
ests of our Holy Faith, in the eminent way, by the wisdom
of your counsels, the authority of your precepts, and the
brightness of your high example; I am endeavouring, in
such a way as I can, to contribute something to the same
common cause, tho’ it be but slight and small, tho’
it be only reviewing the fences and surveying the out-
works ; which is the most I pretend to in the history here
presented.

What advantage others may reap from the publication
will remain in suspence ; but Iam sure of one to myself
(and I lay hold of it with a great deal of pleasure) the
opportunity I thereby have of returning my publick thanks
to your Grace for your publick favors. Tho’ this, my
Lord, is but a scanty expression for them, and far short,
where the engaging manner and circumstances, known but
to few, and not to be understood by many, make so con-
siderable an addition in the whole, and almost double the
obligation upon

My Lorp,
Your Graces most obliged, most dutiful,
and most obedient humble Servant,

DANIEL WATERLAND.

CAMBRIDGE, MaGp. COLL.,
Oct. 25, 1723.

THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE.

--ς.-.

HAT I here present the reader with, will ποῦ re-

quire much Preface. The Introduction intimates
the design and use and partition of the Work. The
Appendix, which is an additional enlargement beyond
my first design, gives account of itself. I subjoin two
Indexes for the ease and convenience of such persons
as may be disposed, not only to read these sheets, but
to study the subject. I should scarce have thought of
making Indexes to so small a treatise, had I not found
the like in Tentzelius, upon the same subject, and to
a smaller tract than this is. His were of considerable
use to me, as often as I wanted to review any par-
ticular author, or passage, or to compare distant parts
relating to the same things, one with another. The
benefit, therefore, which I reaped from his labours,
I am willing to pay back to the public by mine.

As to the subject of the following sheets, I make no
question of its well deserving the thoughts and con-
sideration of every studious reader; having before
passed through the hands of many the most learned and
most judicious men, and such as would not misemploy
their time and pains upon a trifle. As to the present
management of it, it must be left to the reader to judge
of, as he sees cause.

For the chronology of the several parts, I have con-
sulted the best authors ; endeavouring to fix it with as
much accuracy as I could. Wherever I could certainly

xvi THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE.

determine the age of any tract, printed or manuscript, to
a year, I set down that year: where I could not do it
(as in manuscripts one seldom can) I take any probable
year within the compass of time when an author is
known to have flourished; or for a manuscript, any
probable year within such a century or such a king’s
reign wherein the manuscript is reasonably judged to
have been written; and I generally choose a round
number, rather than otherwise, in such indefinite cases
and instances.

Thus, for example, first in respect of authors: there
is a Comment of Venantius Fortunatus, upon the
Athanasian Creed, which I reprint in my Appendix.
I cannot fix the age of it to a year, no, nor to twenty
years. All that is certain is, that it was made be-
tween 556, when Fortunatus first went into the Gal-
lican parts, and 599 when he was advanced to the
bishopric of Poictiers. Within this wide compass, I
choose the year 570. If any one shall rather choose
580, or 590, I shall not dispute it with him, nor doth
anything very material depend upon it: but if any
good reason can be given for taking some other year
rather than 570, I shall immediately acquiesce in it.

As to manuscripts, it is well known there is no
fixing them precisely to a year, merely from the hand
or character: and there are but few, in comparison,
that carry their own certain dates with them. The
best judges, therefore, in these matters, will think it
sufficient to point out the king’s reign, or sometimes
the century, wherein a manuscript was written: and
in the very ancient ones, above a thousand years old,
they will hardly be positive so much as to the century,

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. XVll

for want of certain discriminating marks between manu-
scripts of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries.

It may be asked, then, why I pretend to fix the
several manuscripts, hereafter to be mentioned, to
certain years in the margin; those that carry no cer-
tain dates, as well as the others that do? I do it for
order and regularity, and for the more distinct per-
ception of things, which is much promoted and as-
sisted by this orderly ranging them according to years.
At the same time, the intelligent reader will easily
understand where to take a thing as certain, and where
to make allowances. It is something like the placing
of cities, towns, rivers, &c., in a map or a globe: they
have all their certain places there, in such or such
precise degrees of longitude and latitude; which per-
haps seldom answer to the strict truth of things or to
a mathematical exactness. But still it serves the pur-
pose very near as well as if everything had been
adjusted with the utmost nicety; and the imagination
and memory are mightily relieved by it. Thus much
I thought proper to hint in vindication of my method,
and to prevent any deception on one hand, or mis-
construction on the other. I have, I think, upon the
whole, generally gone upon the fairest and most pro-
bable presumption, and according to the most correct
accounts of knowing and accurate men: but if I have
anywhere, through inadvertency, or for want of better
information, happened to mistake in any material part,
the best way of apologizing for it, will be to correct
it the first opportunity after notice of it.

As to mere omissions, they will appear more, or
fewer, according to men’s different judgments, or opi-

b

Xvi THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE.

nions what to call an omission. J might have en-
larged considerably the first chapter, which treats of
the learned moderns, though some, perhaps, will think
it too large already, and that it might better have been
contracted. I have omitted several moderns mentioned
by Tentzelius, whose professed design was to take in
all; mine is only to take the principal or as many
as may suffice to give the reader a full and distinct
idea how this matter has stood with the learned
moderns for eighty-five years last past.

In this second edition I have considerably shortened
my Appendix, by throwing the several parts of it into
the book itself, referring them to their proper places.
Some few additional observations will be found here
and there interspersed, and some corrections, of slight
moment as to the main thing (in which I make no
alteration) but contributing in some measure to the
perfection and accuracy of the Work.

I conclude with professing, as before, that I shall
be very glad if what hath been here done may but prove
an useful introduction to more and larger discoveries.
If anything considerable still remains, either in private
hands or public repositories; anything that may be
serviceable to clear up some dark part, or to correct any
mistake, or to confirm and illustrate any important
truth relating to the subject, I shall be very thankful
to the person that shall oblige either me with private
notice, or the public with new improvements.

CaMBRIDGE, MaGp. COLt.,
Nov. 1, 1727.

CONTENTS.

CHAP.

THE INTRODUCTION, Suewine tHe De-
SIGN AND Usk oF THIS TREATISE ; WITH THE
MetHop AND PARTITION OF IT

1. THe Oprnions oF THE LEARNED MODERNS CON-
CERNING THE ATHANASIAN CREED

II. Ancrent TesTrmMontes — 5 : ‘

III. Ancient CoMMENTATORS AND PaRAPHRASTS

UPON THE ATHANASIAN CREED ;

IV. Latin Manuscripts oF THE ATHANASIAN

CREED : ᾿ 3 Σ :

V. Anctent Versions, PrintED oR MANUscRIPT .

VI, Or tHe RECEPTION OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED

IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCHES

VIL. Or tue Time WHEN, AND PLACE WHERE, THE
CREED was ComposED : :

VIII. Or tHe ΑΥΤΗΟΙΚ oF THE CREED ὲ >

IX. Tue CREED ITSELF IN THE ORIGINAL Lay-

GUAGE, WITH PARALLEL PAssAGES FROM THE

FATHERS ; ; ; : : 4

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER ΤΧ.-- ῬΑΒΒΑΘῈΒ
FROM THE ANTE-NIcENE Fatuers, CoNFIRM-
ING THE STATEMENTS OF THE ATHANASIAN
CREED ἃ ; 3 : : :

X. A ΟΟΜΜΕΝΤΑΒΥ ON THE ATHANASIAN CREED

PAGE

138
162

173

192
208

xx CONTENTS.

CHAP. PAGE
XI. Tue Cuurcn or Ene anp VINDICATED, BOTH
AS TO THE RECEIVING AND RETAINING THE

ATHANASIAN CREED. : 3 ; >) 2a
APPENDIX, . : ‘ 2 ὁ : . 948
InpEx or AUTHORS AND Epitions . ; Ὁ ΟΡ
Inpex oF Manuscripts . . ; ι wes

InpDEX OF AUTHORITIES . : 2 : ~ 280

A CRITICAL HISTORY OF
THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

THE INTRODUCTION,

SHewine THE Design anp Use or THIS TREATISE;
with THE MrerHop AND PARTITION OF IT.

Y design is, to enquire into the age, author, and
value of that celebrated confession, which goes
under the name of The Athanasian Creed. The general
approbation it hath long met with in the Christian
Churches, and the particular regard which hath been,
early and late, paid to it in our own, (while it makes
a part of our Liturgy, and stands recommended to
us in our Articles,) will, I doubt not, be considera-
tions sufficient to justify an undertaking of this kind:
provided only, that the performance be answerable,
and that it fall not short of its principal aim, or of
the just expectations of the ingenuous and candid
readers. No one will expect more of me than my
present materials, such as I could procure, will furnish
me with; nor any greater certainty in an essay of this
nature, than things of this kind will admit of. If
a reasonable diligence has been used in collecting, and
due pains in digesting, and a religious care in building
thereupon, (more than which I pretend not to), it may,

I hope, be sufficient with all equitable judges.
Many learned and valuable men have been before

B

2 THE INTRODUCTION.

employed in the same design; but their treatises are
mostly in Latin, and some of them very scarce, and
hard to come at. I know not that any one hitherto
has attempted a just treatise upon the subject in our
own language, however useful it might be to the Eng-
lish readers; and the more so at this time when the
controversy about the Trinity is now spread abroad
among all ranks and degrees of men with us, and the
Athanasian Creed become the subject of common and
ordinary conversation. For these reasons, I presumed,
an English treatise might be most proper and season-
able: though otherwise, to avoid the unseemly mix-
ture of English and Latin (which will here be neces-
sary), and because of some parts which none but the
learned can tolerably judge of, it might be thought
more proper rather to have written a Latin treatise,
and for the use only of scholars. However, there will
be nothing very material but what an English reader
may competently understand: and I shall endeavour
to lay before him all that has been hitherto usefully
observed upon the subject, that he may want nothing
which may be conceived of any moment for the enabling
him to form a true judgment. What I borrow from
others shall be fairly acknowledged as I go along, and
referred to its proper author, or authors; it being as
much my design to give an historical account of what
others have done, as it is to supply what they have
left undone, so far as my present materials, leisure,
and opportunities may enable me to do it. Now, to
present the reader with a sketch of my design, and
to shew him how one part is to hang upon another,
my method will be as follows :—

THE INTRODUCTION. 3

I. First, in order to give the clearer idea of what
has been already done, and of what may be still want-
ing, I begin with recounting the several conjectures
or discoveries of the learned moderns.

II. Next, to enter upon the matter itself, and the
evidence proper to it, I proceed to lay down the direct
testimonies of the ancients concerning the age, author,
and value of this Creed.

111. To these I subjoin an account of the ancient
comments upon the same Creed, being but another
kind of ancient testimonies.

IV. After these follows a brief recital of the most
ancient, or otherwise most considerable, manuscripts
of this Creed, which I have either seen myself, or have
had notice of from others.

VY. After the manuscripts of the Creed itself, I en-
quire also into the ancient versions of it, printed, or
manuscript; which will be also very serviceable to
our main design.

VI. I come in the next place to treat of the ancient
reception of this Creed in the Christian Churches; as
being a point of great moment, and which may be more
certuinly determined than the time of its composition,
and may give great light into it.

VII. These preliminaries settled, to introduce to
what follows, I then fall directly to the darkest part
of all, namely, to the enquiry after the age, and
author of the Creed; which I despatch in two dis-
tinct chapters.

VIII. Next, I lay before the learned reader the
Creed itself in its original language, with the most
considerable various lections; together with select pas-

4 THE INTRODUCTION.

sages from ancient writers, either parallel to those of
the Creed, or explanatory of it. And lest the English
reader should appear to be neglected, I subjoin the
Creed in English with a running English Commentary,
serving much the same purpose with what is intended
by the Latin quotations going before.

IX. I conclude all with a brief vindication of our
own Church in receiving, and still retaining this ex-
cellent formulary of the Christian faith; answering
the most material objections which have been made
against us on that account; and shewing the expe-
diency, and even necessity of retaining this form, or
something equivalent, for the preservation of the
Christian faith against heresies. The reader, I hope,
will excuse it, if m compliance with custom, and to
save myself the trouble of circumlocution, I commonly
speak of it under the name of the Athanasian Creed ;
not designing thereby to intimate, either that it is
a creed strictly and properly so called, or that it is of
Athanasius’s composing: both which points will be
discussed in the sequel.

CHAPTER I.

THe OFINIoNS oF THE LEARNED MoDERNS CONCERNING
THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

A.D. 1642. In reciting the opinions of the learned
moderns, I need go no higher than Gerard Vossius,
who in his treatise de Tribus Symbolis, published in
the year 1642, led the way to a more strict and critical
enquiry concerning this Creed than had been before
attempted. The writers before him, most of them,
took it for granted that the Creed was Athanasius’s,
without troubling themselves with any very particular
enquiry into it: and those few who doubted of it, or
ascribed it to another, yet entered not closely into the
merits of the cause, but went upon loose conjectures
rather than upon any just rules of true and solid
criticism. It will be sufficient therefore to begin our
accounts from Vossius, who, since the time of his
writing, has been ever principally mentioned by writers
upon the subject, as being the first and most con-
siderable man that has entered deep into it, and treated
of it like a critic. He endeavoured to sift the matter
thoroughly, as far as he was well able to do from
printed books; as to manuscripts he either wanted
leisure or opportunity to search for them. The result
of his enquiries concluded in the following particulars,
some of them dubiously, all of them modestly proposed
by him. 1. That the Athanasian Creed is not Athana-
sius’s. 2. That it was originally a Latin composure,

6 THE OPINIONS OF THE LEARNED MODERNS

and of a Latin author or authors. 38. That it was
made in the eighth or ninth century, in the time of
Pepin or of Charles the Great, and probably by some
French divine. 4. That the first time it was pro-
duced under the name of Athanasius, at least, with
any assurance and confidence of it being his, was in
the year 1233, when Pope Gregory the Ninth’s legates
pleaded it at Constantinople in favour of the proces-
sion against the Greeks. 5. That it scarce ever ob-
tained in any of the Christian Churches before the
year 1000. These were his sentiments when he wrote
his treatise de Tribus Symbolis, But in a posthumous
piece of his, having then seen what some other learned
men had written upon the subject, he was content to
say that the Creed could not be set higher than the
year 6000". How far Vossius was mistaken in his
accounts will appear in the sequel. Thus far must
be allowed him, that he managed the argument with
great learning and judgment, made a good use of such
materials as he was possessed of, and though he was
not very happy in determining the age of the Creed,
or the time of its reception, yet he produced so many
and such cogent arguments against the Creed’s being
originally Greek, or being made by Athanasius, that
they could never be answered.

1644. The learned Petavius, who in the year 1622
(when he published Epiphanius) had fallen in with
the common opinion of this Creed’s being Athanasius’s,
did yet afterward in his treatise of the Trinity, pub-

a “Neque ante annum fuisse sexcentesimum, fuse ostendimus

in libro de tribus Symbolis,’—Voss., Harmonia Hvangelica, bk. ii.
96. 13, in vol. vi. p. 215.

CONCERNING THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 7

lished in the year 1644, speak more doubtfully of it;
in the meanwhile positive that it was written in
Latin?.

1647. The next considerable man, and who may be
justly called a first writer in this argument as well
as Vossius, was our learned Usher. He had a good
acquaintance with libraries and manuscripts, and was
able from those stores to produce new evidences which
Vossius knew not of. In the year 1647 he printed
his Latin tract de Symbolis, with a prefatory epistle
to Vossius. He there appeals to the testimonies of
Ratram of Corbey, and Adneas, Bishop of Paris, neither
of them at that time made public, as also to Hincmar’s
of Rheims, (which had been published but had escaped
Vossius’s observation), to prove that this Creed had
been confidently cited under the name of Athanasius
almost 400 years before the time of Pope Gregory’s
legates, the time set by Vossius. And further, by two
manuscripts found in the Cotton Library, he thought
he might carry up the antiquity of the Creed to the
year 703, or even to 600. In short, he scrupled not
to set the date of it above the year 447: for he sup-
poses a Council of Spain, held in that year, to have
been acquainted with it, and to have borrowed the
Filioque from ite. Thus far he, without any more
particular determination about either the age or the
author.

Ὁ Petavius de Trinitate, bk. vii. ο. 8, § 7, in vol. ii. p. 392.

¢ Usser de Symbolis, p. 29 (24). N.B. Usher went upon the sup-
position that the words, a patre, filioque procedens, were genuine,
and not foisted into the Confession of that Council; as they now
appear to have been, after a more careful view of the MSS. of best
note and greatest antiquity.

8 THE OPINIONS OF THE LEARNED MODERNS

1647. About the same time Dr. Jeremy Taylor
(afterwards Bishop of Down and Connor) published his
“‘ Liberty of Prophesying,” wherein he expresses his
doubts whether the Creed be justly ascribed to Atha-
nasius*’. But as he had never seen Usher’s Treatise,
nor indeed Vossius’s, nor was at that time furnished
with any proper assistances to enable him to make any
accurate enquiries into this matter; it may suffice just
to have mentioned him, in regard to the deserved
name he has since borne in the learned world.

1658. George Ashwell, B.D., published an English
treatise, which was printed at Oxford, entitled Ides
Apostolica, asserting the received authors and autho-
rity of the Apostles’ Creed. At the end of which
treatise he has a pretty long Appendix concerning the
Athanasian Creed, which is well written, and contaims
a good summary of what learned men before him had
advanced upon the subject. His judgment of it is,
that it was written in Latin, and by Athanasius him-
self, about the year 340.

1659. Hamon L’Estrange °, in his ‘‘ Alliance of Di-
vine Offices,” gives his judgment of the Athanasian
Creed, that it is not rightly ascribed to Athanasius, but
yet ancient and extant about the year 600 after Christ.

1659. Leo Allatius about this year printed his
Syntagma de Symbolo δ. Athanasii, which no doubt
must be a very useful piece, especially in relation to
the sentiments of the Greek Churches, and the recep-
tion of this Creed amongst them; but I have never
seen it; only I learn from Tentzelius (who yet could

4 Taylor, Liberty of Proph., § 2, 36, in vol. v. p. 407.
ὁ L’Estrange, Alliance of Divine Offices, ὁ. 4, p. 99.

CONCERNING THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 9

never get a sight of it) and Fabricius, that such a piece
was written by Allatius in modern Greek, in 12mo.,
published at Rome 1658 or 1659. It appears to be
very scarce, since none of the learned who have since
written upon this Creed, have either referred to it, or
given extracts out of it, so far as I have observed ;
excepting only something of that kind at Rome, a.p.
1667, by the College de propaganda Fide *.

1668. Cardinal Bona, some years after, in his book
de Divina Psalmodia, makes frequent mention of this
Creed; touches slightly upon the question about its
age and author; takes some cursory notice of what
Vossius had said, but nevertheless ascribes it to Atha-
nasius, as being composed by him while in the western
parts, Zeste Baronio; resting his faith upon Baronius
as his youcher 8.

1669. Our very learned Bishop Pearson, in his Ex-
position of the Creed, occasionally delivers his opinion
that the Athanasian Creed was written in Latin, and
by some member of the Latin Church*, and extant
about the year 600; though the last particular he
builds only upon an epistle attributed to Isidore of
Seville, and since judged to be spurious.

1675. Joh. Lud. Ruelius, in his second volume or
tome, Conciliorum illustratorum, has a particular dis-
sertation, about thirty pages in quarto, upon this Creed.
He follows Vossius’s opinion for the most part, re-
peating the same arguments’.

f Vid. Tentzel, Judic. &c., p. 147; Fabricius, Biblioth. Greca,
vol. v. p. 410.
& Bona, de Divina Psalmod., ο. 16, § 18, p. 864.
h Pearson on the Creed, Art. 8, p. 569, n. (p. 324, ed. 3); Art.
5, p. 400, n. (p. 226.)
i Ruelius, Concil. Lllustrat., vol. ii, pp. 639—670.

10 THE OPINIONS OF THE LEARNED MODERNS

1675. Our next man of eminent character is Pas-
chasius Quesnel, a celebrated French divine. In the
year 1675, he published his famous edition of Pope
Leo’s works, with several very valuable dissertations
of his own. His fourteenth contains, among other
matters, a particular enquiry about the author of this
Creed. He ascribes it to Vigilius Tapsensis, the
African*; and so well defends his position, that he
has almost drawn the learned world after him. He
is looked upon as the father of that opinion, because
he has so learnedly and handsomely supported it; but
he is not the first that espoused it, for Labbe, about
fifteen years before, had taken notice of some that had
ascribed this Creed to Vigilius, at the same time signi-
fying his dissent from them '.

1676. The year after Quesnel, Sandius, the famous
Arian, printed a second edition of his Mucleus, &c.,
with an Appendix; wherein he corrects his former
judgment™ of this Creed, taken implicitly from Vos-
sius; and allows, nay, contends and insists upon it,
that this Creed was not only known, but known under
the name of Athanasius, as high at least as the year
770". He ascribes it, upon conjecture, to one Atha-
nasius, Bishop of Spire in Germany, who died in the
year 642,

1678. I ought not to pass over our very learned
Cudworth, though he has entered very little into the
point before us. He gives his judgment, in passing,

k Quesnel, Dissert. xiv. p. 729, &c.

1 Labbe, Dissert. de Script. Eccles., vol. ii. p. 477.
m Sandius, Vucl. Histor. Eccles., p. 256.

» Sandius, Appendix, p. 35,

CONCERNING THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 11

of the Creed commonly called Athanasian, that it was
written a long time after Athanasius, by some other
hand °.

1680. Henricus Heideggerus, in his second volume
of select dissertations (published at Zurich), has one
whole dissertation, which is the eighteenth, containing
near forty pages in quarto. This author takes his
account of the Creed mostly from Vossius; does not
allow it to be Athanasius’s, only called by his name as
containing the Athanasian faith: and he defends the
doctrine of the Creed at large against the objections
of Dudithius and other Antitrinitarians ; and concludes
with a running comment upon the whole.

1681. Wolfgang Gundling, a German writer, the year
after, published a small tract, containing notes upon
a little piece relating to the religion of the Greek
Churches, written by Eustratius Johannides Zialowski.
What is chiefly valuable in Gundling, is his account
of the Greek copies of this Creed, (printed ones I mean,)
giving us six of them together. He occasionally ex-
presses his doubts whether the Creed be Athanasius’s,
or of some later writer ?.

1683. I may next mention our celebrated eccle-
siastical historian, Dr. Cave, who about this time
published his Lives of the Fathers, and particularly
of Athanasius. His account of this Creed is, that it
was never heard of in the world till above 600 years
after Athanasius was dead ; but barely mentioned then,
and not urged with any confidence till above 200 years
after, when the legates of Pope Gregory IX. produced

ο Cudworth, Intellect. Syst., bk. i. ο. 4. p. 620.
P Gundling, Notes on Zialowski, p. 68, &c.

12 THE OPINIONS OF THE LEARNED MODERNS

and pleaded it at Constantinople ἃ, The learned doctor,
it is plain, took this account from Vossius, and had
never seen Usher’s treatise, which one may justly
wonder at. Five years after, in his Historia Literaria,
he allows that this Creed had been spoken of by
Theodulphus, which was within 496 years of Atha-
nasius; but not a word yet of any elder testimony or
manuscript, though both had been discovered and
publicly taken notice of before this time. He still con-
tends that the Creed obtained not in the Christian
Churches before 1000, nor became famous everywhere
before 1238; but inclines nevertheless to ascribe it
to Vigilius Tapsensis, who flourished about the year
484".

1684. Dr. Comber, in his book entitled ‘‘ A Compa-
nion to the Temple,’’ closes in with the old tradition
of the Creed being Athanasius’s, repeating the most
considerable arguments usually pleaded for that per-
suasion §,

1684. To him I may subjoin Bishop Beveridge, who
perhaps about this time might write his thoughts on
the Creed, in his Exposition of our Articles, published
after his death. He was so diligent and knowing a
man, that had he been to consider this matter in his
later years, he would certainly have given a more
particular and accurate account than that which now
appears. He ascribes the Creed to Athanasius, but
with some diffidence, and thinks it might have been
originally a Greek composition, but that the old Greek

a Cave, Life of Athanasius, § 6, Art. 10, in vol. ii. p. 106.
τ Cave, Histor. Literar., vol. i. pp. 146, 371.
® Comber, Companion to the Temple, p. 144.

CONCERNING THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 13

copies have been lost, and that the only remaining
ones are Versions from the Latin ¢,

1685. Cabassutius, in his Wotitia Ecclesiastica, hath
a short dissertation about the author of this Creed».
He contents himself with repeating Quesnel’s Argu-
ments, to prove that Athanasius was not the author of
it, determining nothing farther, save only that it was
originally a Latin composure, known and cited by the
Council of Autun, about the year 670.

1687. The celebrated Dupin, in his Ecclesiastical
History, sums up the reasons usually urged to prove
the Creed is none of Athanasius’s, and assents to them.
He determines with confidence that it was originally
a Latin composition, and not known till the fifth cen-
tury; repeats Father Quesnel’s reasons for ascribing
it to Vigilius Tapsensis, and acquiesces in them as
haying nothing more certain in this matter ’.

1687. About the same time, Tentzelius, a learned
Lutheran, published a little treatise upon the subject,
setting forth the several opinions of learned men con-
cerning this Creed. He is very full and accurate in
his collection, omitting nothing of moment that had
been said before him by any of the learned moderns,
but bringing in some further materials from his own
searches to add new light to the subject. He deter-
mines nothing, but leaves it to the reader to make a
judgment as he sees cause from a full view of the
pleadings.

1688. I may place here the learned Pagi, who in

t Beveridge, on Art. 8, (p. 162), in vol. ix. p. 277.

ἃ Cabassutius, Wotit. Heccles., Dissert. xix. p. 54.
τ Dupin, Eccles. Histor., vol. ii. p. 35.

14 THE OPINIONS OF THE LEARNED MODERNS

his critic upon Baronius passes his judgment of this
Creed*: which being the same with Quesnel’s, and
little more than repetition from him, I need not be
more particular about him.

1693. Joseph Antelmi, a learned Paris divine, first
began directly to attack Quesnel’s opinion, and to sap
the reasons on which it was founded. He published
a particular dissertation to that purpose, consisting of
eighty-five pages in octavo. He ascribes the Creed to
Vincentius Lirimensis, who flourished in the year 434.

1695. The famous Tillemont wrote after Antelmius,
for he makes mention of his treatise, and examines his
hypothesis, and yet it could not be long after, for he
died in the year 1697. He commends Mr. Antelmi’s
performance as a considerable work, but inclines still
rather to Quesnel’s opinion. All that he pronounces
certain is, that the Creed is none of Athanasius’s, but
yet as old as the sixth century or older’.

1698. In the year 1698 Montfaucon published his
new and accurate edition of Athanasius’s works. In
the second tome he has an excellent dissertation upon
this Creed, the best that is extant, either for order
and method, or for plenty of useful matter. The sum
of his judgment is, that the Creed is certainly none of
Athanasius’s, nor yet Vigilius Tapsensis’s, nor suffi-
ciently proved to belong to Vincentius Lirinensis; but
probably enough composed about the time of Vincentius,
and by a Gallican writer or writers +.

x Pagi, Critic. in Baron. Ann. 340, §§ 6—8, pp. 120, 121 (p. 440).

y Tillemont, M/émotres, note xxxiv. vol. viii, p. 282 (p. 667).

z “Symbolum ‘Quicunque’ Athanasio incunctanter abjudican-

dum arbitramur.—Afro itaque Vigilio nihil est quod symbolum ‘Qui-
cunque’ tribuatur.—non egre quidem concesserim Vincentii etate

CONCERNING THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 15
1698. In the same year, Ludovicus Antonius Mura-
torius, an Italian writer, published a second tome of
Anecdota out of the Ambrosian library at Milan.
Among other manuscripts there, he had met with an
ancient comment upon this Creed, ascribed to Venan-
tius Fortunatus, who was Bishop of Poictiers in France
in the sixth century. He publishes the comment,
together with a dissertation of his own concerning
the author of the Creed, concluding, at length, that
Venantius Fortunatus, the certain author of the Com-
ment, might possibly be the author of the Creed too.
He entirely rejects the opinion of those that would
ascribe it to Athanasius, and disapproves of Quesnel’s
persuasion about Vigilius Tapsensis, but speaks fa-
vourably of Antelmi’s, as coming nearest to the truth *.
1712. Fabricius, in his Bibliotheca Greca” (highly
valued by all men of letters), gives a summary account
of the sentiments of the learned relating to this Creed.
His conclusion from all is, that thus far may be de-
pended on as certain: that the Creed was not com-
posed by Athanasius, but long after in the fifth cen-
tury, written originally in Latin, and afterwards trans-
lated into Greek.
1712. In the same year, the learned Le Quien pub-
lished a new edition of Damascen, with previous dis-
sertations to it. In the first of these he has several

editam fuisse illam fidei professionem.—Haud abs re conjectant
Viri eruditi in Galliis illud (symbolum) fuisse elucubratum.”—

accedere.’’—Muratori, Anecd., vol. ii. p. 222.
b Fabricius, Biblioth. Graca, bk. v. c. 2, ὃ 88, in vol. v. p. 315.

16 THE OPINIONS OF THE LEARNED MODERNS

very considerable remarks concerning the age and au-
thor of the Athanasian Creed. He appears inclinable
to ascribe it to Pope Anastasius I. (who entered upon
the pontificate in the year 398) because of some an-
cient testimonies, as well as manuscripts, carrying the
name of Anastasius in the title of the Creed; but he
is positive that the Creed must be set as high as the
age of St. Austin, Vincentius, and Vigilius®. And, as
Antelmius before had made light of the supposition
that the internal characters of the. Creed shew it to be
later than Eutyches, he makes as light of the other
supposition of the internal characters setting it later
than Nestorius.

1714. Natalis Alexander’s new edition of his Eccle-
siastical History bears date a.p. 1714. He had ex-
amined into our present question some years before
(about 1676, when his first edition came abroad), sub-
scribing to the opinion of Quesnel, and he does not
appear to have altered his mind since. He takes
notice of Antelmi’s opinion, and speaks respectfully of
it, as also of the author, but prefers the other hypo-
thesis *.

1715. I ought not here to omit the late learned
Mr. Bingham, to whom the public has been highly
indebted for his Origines Leclesiastice, collected with
great judgment, and digested into a clear method.
He had a proper occasion to say something of the
Athanasian Creed in passing, and very briefly. He
observes that it was not composed by Athanasius, but

¢ “*Omnino fateri cogor Augustini, Vincentii, et Vigilii xtate
extitisse expositionem Latinam Fidei, que postmodum Athanasio

magno attribui meruerit.”—Le Quien, Dissert. Damasc., i. p. 9.
ἃ Natal. Alexand., Ecc). Hist., vol. iv. p. 111.

CONCERNING THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 17

by a later and a Latin writer, and particularly Vigilius
Tapsensis; referring to such learned moderns as I
have above mentioned, for the proof of it, and giving
no more than short hints of their reasons °,

1719. Dr. Clarke of St. James’s, in his second edition
of his Scripture Doctrine ‘, gives us his last thoughts
in relation to this Creed. Referring to Dr. Cave he
informs us, that this Creed was never seen till about
the year 800, near 400 years after the death of Atha-
nasius (they are his own words), nor was received in
the Church till so very late as about the year 1000.
Yet Cave does not say, ‘‘ was never seen” (for he him-
self ascribes it to Vigilius Tapsensis of the fifth century),
but only that it was not quoted before the year 800,
or nearly, which yet is a very great mistake. What
the learned Doctor intended by saying ‘‘ about the year
800,” and yet only ‘‘ near 400 years after the death of
Athanasius,” or, as he elsewhere ® expresses it, ‘‘ above
300 years after the death of Athanasius,’ I do not
understand, but must leave to those that can compute
the distance between 373 (the latest year that Athana-
sius is ever supposed to have lived) and the year 800.
I am persuaded the Doctor was thinking, that if Atha-
nasius had lived to the year 400, then the distance had
been just 400 years; but as he died twenty-seven
years before, the distance must be so much the less,
when it is quite the contrary.

1722. The last man that has given his sentiments in

e Bingham, Oriy. Eccles., bk. x. ὁ. 4, § 18, in vol. iii. p. 92, &c.
(vol. iv. p. 112, &c.)

f Clarke’s Script. Doctr., pt. iii. 6. 2,.in vol. iii. p. 205, (p. 379,

2nd edit.)
& Ibid., p. 447, 1st ed.

18 ὙΠῈ OPINIONS OF THE LEARNED MODERNS, &c.

relation to this Creed is Casimirus Oudinus, in his new
edition of his Supplement (now called a Commentary)
to the Ecclesiastical Writers. I need say no more than
that he does not seem to have spent much pains in re-
examining this subject, but rests content with his first
thoughts, ascribing the Creed, with Quesnel, to Vi-
gilius Tapsensis >.

These are the principal moderns that have fallen
within my notice, and of these the most considerable
are Vossius, Usher, Quesnel, Tentzelius, Antelmius,
Tillemont, Montfaucon, Muratorius, and Le Quien; as
haying particularly studied the subject, and struck
new light into it, either furnishing fresh materials, or
improving the old by new observations. Some, perhaps,
may wish to have the several opinions of the moderns
thrown into a narrower compass: for which reason
IT have thought it not improper to subjoin the follow-
ing table, which will represent all in one view, for the
ease and conveniency of every common reader.

h Oudin., Comment. de Scriptor. Eccles., vol. i. pp. 345, 1248, 1322.

A.D.

1642
1644
1647
1647
1653
1659
1659
1663
1669,
1675
1675
1676
1678.
1680
1681)
1683
1684
1684
1685
1687
1687
1688
1693
1695
1698
1698
1712
1712
1714
1715
1719
1722

THE OPINIONS OF THE LEARNED

MODERNS.

Author of the What Century {What Year| When

Writers. Creed. composed in. | composed. | received,
Vossius. A Latin author. Not bef. 600} s.p. 1000
Petavius. Doubtful.
Bishop Usher. Fifth. Before 447 | Before 852
Bishop Taylor. Not Athanasius.
G. Ashwell. Athanasius. Fourth. 340
L’Estrange. Not Athanasius. Before 600
Leo Allatius. Athanasius. Fourth. 940
Card. Bona. Athanasius Alex. Fourth, 340
Bishop Pearson. |A Latin author. About 600
Ruelius. Not Athanasius.
Paschas. Quesnel. | Vigilius Tapsensis. Fifth. 484 Before 670
Sandius. Athanasius of Spire. Seventh. Before 642 | Before 770
Dr. Cudworth. |Not Athanasius. | After the Fourth.
Heideggerus. Vigilius Tapsensis. Fifth. 484
Wolf, Gundling. | Doubtful.
Dr. Cave. Vigilius Tapsensis. Fifth. 484 1000
Dr. Comber. Athanasius Alex. Fourth. 335°
Bp. Beveridge. Athanasius Alex. Fourth. Before 850
Cabassutius. |A Latin author. Before 670
Dupin. Vigilius Tapsensis. Fifth. 484
Tentzelius. Doubtful.
Pagi. Vigilius Tapsensis. Fifth. 484 570
Antelmius. Vincentius Lirinens. | Fifth. Before 450
Tillemont. Not Athanasius. Sixth, or sooner.
Montfaucon. A Gallican writer. Fifth. Before 670
Ant. Muratorius. | Venant. Fortunatus. Sixth. 570 800
Fabricius. A Latin author. Fifth. 663
Le Quien. Anastasius 1. Fourth or Fifth. | Before 401 500
Natal. Alexander. | Vigilius Tapsensis. Fifth. 484
Mr. Bingham. Vigilius Tapsensis. Fifth. 670
Dr. Clarke. Doubtful. Seventh or Eighth. 1000
Oudin. Vigilius Tapsensis, Fifth. 484

CHAPTER II.

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES.

Havine taken a view of the moderns in relation to
the Creed, we may now enter upon a detail of the an-
cients and their testimonies, by which the moderns
must be tried. My design is to lay before the reader
all the original evidence I can meet with, to give any
light either into the age or author of the Creed, or its
reception in the Christian Churches, that so the reader
may be able to judge for himself concerning the three
particulars now mentioned, which are what I con-
stantly bear in my eye, producing nothing but with
a view to one or more of them.

Ancient testimonies have been pretended from Gre-
gory Nazianzen, Gaudentius Brixiensis, St. Austin, and
Isidorus Hispalensis, of the fourth, fifth, and sixth cen-
turies*; but they have been since generally and justly
exploded by the learned as being either spurious or
foreign to the point; and therefore I conceive it very
needless to take any further notice of them. As to
quotations from our Creed, or comments upon it, falling
within the compass of the centuries now mentioned,
if there be any such, they shall be considered under
other heads, distinct from that of ancient testimonies,
properly so called, to be treated of in this chapter.

® These testimonies are collected and discussed by Montfaucon,

(Diatrib. in Symb., pp. 719, 720); from whom Dr. Waterland ap-
pears to have obtained most of the passages quoted in this chapter.

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 21

670. The oldest of this kind hitherto discovered or
observed, is that of the Council of Autun in France,
under Leodegarius, or St. Leger, the Bishop of the
place in the seventh century. There is some dispute
about the year when the Council was held, whether
in 663, or 666, or 670. The last is most probable, and
most generally embraced by learned men. The words
of this Council in English, run thus:—‘‘If any pres-
byter, deacon, sub-deacon, or clerk, doth not unre-
provably recite the Creed which the Apostles delivered
by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and also the faith
of the holy prelate Athanasius, let him be censured by
the Bishop’.” By the faith of Athanasius is here
meant what we now call the Athanasian Creed, as may
be reasonably pleaded from the titles which this Creed
bore in the earlier times before it came to have the
name of a Creed; which titles shall be exhibited
both from manuscripts and written evidences in the
sequel. Yet it must not be dissembled that Papebro-
chius, a learned man, and whom I find cited with
approbation by Muratorius*, is of opinion that the
faith of Athanasius here mentioned, means the Nicene

b “*Si quis presbyter, diaconus, sub-diaconus, vel clericus, sym-
bolum quod Sauncto inspirante Spiritu Apostoli tradiderunt et
fidem Sancti Athanasii presulis irreprehensibiliter non recensue-
rit; ab episcopo condemnetur.”—Augustodun. Synod., in Harduin,
vol. iii. p. 1016.

ε « Atqui, ut eruditissime adnotavit clarissimus P. Papebrochius,
in Respons. ad exhibitionem Errorum par. ii. Art. 13. n. 36, verbis
illis fidem 8. Athanasii, minime symbolum Athanasianum desig-
natur, sed quidem Nicznum, in quo elaborando plurimum insudasse
Athanasium verisimile est. Etenim cur Apostolico symbolo com-
mendato Nicenum pretermisissent Augustoduneuses Patres? Cur
Athanasiani symboli, cujus tune nullus erat usus in sacris, cogni-
tionem exegissent, Nicenumque ne uno quidem verbo commemo-
rassent ?’”—Murator., Anecdot., vol. ii. p. 223.

22 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

Creed, which Athanasius had some hand in, and where-
of he was the great defender. JI can by no means
come into his opinion, or allow any force to his reason-
ings. He asks, Why should the Nicene Creed be
omitted and not mentioned with the Apostles’? and,
why should the Athanasian not then used in the sacred
offices, be recommended so carefully without a word
of the Nicene? I answer, because it does not appear
that the Nicene Creed was so much taken notice of at
that time in the Gallican Churches, while the Apo-
stolical or Roman Creed made use of in baptism in
the Western Churches instead of the Nicene, (which
prevailed in the East,) in a manner superseded it;
which no one can wonder at who considers how pre-
vailing and universal the tradition had been in the
Latin Church, down from the fifth century at least,
that the Apostolical Creed was composed by the twelve
Apostles, and therefore as sacred and of as great autho-
rity as the inspired writings themselves. Besides that,
it appears from Hinemar, who will be cited in his
place, that it was no strange thing even so low as his
time, about 850, to recommend the Athanasian Creed
along with the Apostles’, without a word of the Nicene.
And why should it be thought any objection against
the Athanasian Creed that it was not at that time re-
ceived into the sacred offices, (supposing it really was
not, which may be questioned,) when it is certain that
the Nicene was not yet received into the sacred offices
in France, nor till many years after, about the time of
Pepin or of Charles the Great? There is therefore
no force at all in the argument of Papebrochius; but
there is this strong prejudice against it, that the title

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 23

there given is a very common title for the Athanasian
Creed and not for the Nicene. Nor would the Fathers
of that Council have been so extravagantly fond of the
name of Athanasius, as to think it a greater commen-
dation of the Creed of Nice to call it after him than
to call it the Nicene. There is, then, no reasonable
doubt to be made but that the Council of Autun in the
Canon intended the Athanasian Creed, as the best
critics and the generality of the learned have hitherto
believed.

But there are other objections of real weight against
the evidence built upon this canon. 1. Oudin makes
it a question whether there was ever any Council held
under Leodegarius, a suffragan bishop under the Arch-
bishop of Lyons, having no metropolitical authority ὦ,
But it may suffice if the Council was held at Autun,
while he was bishop of the place, a good reason why
he should be particularly mentioned; especially con-
sidering the worth and fame of the man, to say nothing
of the dignity of his see, which from the time of Gre-
gory the Great, had been the second or next in dignity
to the metropolitical see of Lyons. Nor do I perceive
any force in Oudin’s objection against St. Leger’s hold-
ing a diocesan synod (for a provincial synod is not
pretended), though he was no metropolitan. 2. A
stronger objection is that the canon we are concerned
with, cannot be proved to belong to the council held
under Leodegarius. It is not found among the canons
of that council published by Sirmondus, from the manu-
scripts of the Library of the Church of Angers, but it
is from another collection out of the library of the

4 Oudin, Comment. de Scriptor. Eccles., vol. i. p. 348.

24 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

monastery of St. Benignus, of Dijon, with this title
only, Canones Augustodunenses; so that one cannot
be certain whether it belongs to the synod under St.
Leger, or to some other synod of Autun much later.
It must be owned that the evidence can amount to no
more than probable presumption or conjecture ; where-
fore Dupin’, Tentzeliusf, Muratorius%, and Oudin 4,
do not scruple to throw it aside as of too suspected
credit to build anything certain upon: and even Ques-
nel‘ expresses some dissatisfaction about it; only in
respect to some great names, such as Sirmondus, Peter
le Lande, Godfr. Hermantius, &c., he is willing to
acquiesce in it. To whom we may add, LabbeJ, Le
Coint *, Cabassutius!, Pagi ™, Tillemont ", Montfau-
con °, Fabricius P, Harduin “, and our learned antiquary
Mr. Binghim', who all accept it as genuine, but upon
probable persuasion rather than certain conviction.
Neither do I pretend to propose it as clear and un-
doubted evidence, but probable only, and such as will
be much confirmed by other evidences to be mentioned
hereafter.

760. Regino, Abbot of Prom in Germany, an author

¢ Dupin, Eccl. Hist., vol. ii. p. 35.

Ἢ Tentzel., Judic. Erud., p. 61, &e.

s Murator., Anecdot., vol. ii. p. 223.

4 Oudin, Comment. de Seriptor. Eccles., vol. i. p. 348.

i Quesnel, Dissert. xiv. p. 731.

j Labbe, Dissert. de Scriptor. Eccles., vol. ii. p. 478.

k Le Cointe, Annal. Franc. ad Ann. 663, n. 22.

1 Cabassut., Notit. Eccl. Dissert. xix. p. 54.

m Pagi, Crit. in Baron. Ann. 340, § 6. p. 120.

» Tillemont, J/émozres, vol. viii. p. 283, (vol. viii. p. 668.)

ο Montfauc., Diatrib. in Symb., p. 720.

» Fabric., Bibl. Grec., lib. v. 6. 2, § 88, in vol. v. p. 316.

4 Harduin, Concil., vol. iii. p. 1016.

τ Bingham, Orig. Hecles., bk. x. c. 4, § 18, in vol. iii. p. 94, (vol.
iv. p. 120.

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 25

of the ninth and tenth centuries, has among other
collections, some Articles of Inquiry, supposed by Ba-
luzius the editor to be as old, or very nearly, as the
age of Boniface, Bishop of Mentz, who died in the
year 754. In those articles, there is one to this pur-
pose: ‘‘ Whether the clergy have by heart Athana-
sius’s tract upon the faith of the Trinity, beginning
with Whosoever will be saved,” ἄο. This testimony
I may venture to place about 760, a little after the
death of Boniface.

794. The Council of Frankfort, in Germany, in
their 33rd Canon, give orders that “The Catholic
faith of the holy Trinity, and Lord’s Prayer, and Creed,
be set forth and delivered to all *.”’

Vossius" understands the canon of the two Creeds
Nicene and Apostolical; but I know not why the
Apostolical or Roman Creed should be emphatically
called Symbolum Fide’, the Creed, in opposition to the
Nicene, nor why the Nicene should not be called
a Creed as well as the other, after the usual way.
Besides that Fides Catholica, &c., has been more pe-
culiarly the title of the Athanasian Creed; and it was
no uncommon thing, either before or after this time, to
recommend it in this manner together with the Lord's
Prayer, and Apostles’ Creed, just as we find here. And
nothing could be at that time of greater service against
the heresy of Felix and Elipandus, (which occasioned the

5. “*Si sermonem Athanasii episcopi de Fide Sancte Trinitatis,
cujus initium est, ‘ Quicunque vult Salvus esse,’ memoriter teneat.”
—Regin. de Discipl. Eccles., lib. i. c. 1, § 85.

t «Ut fides Catholica sancte Trinitatis, et Oratio Dominica, at-
que Symbolum Fidei omnibus predicetur, et tradatur.”—Concil.

Franef., Can. 33, in Harduin, vol. iv. p. 908.
ἃ Vossius de tribus Symb. Dissert. iii. ὁ. 26, p. 528.

26 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

calling of the Council,) than the Athanasian Creed ;
for which reasons, till I see better reasons to the con-
trary, I must be of opinion that the Council of Frank-
fort in their 38rd Canon intended the Athanasian
Creed, which Charles the Great had a particular respect
for, and had presented in form to Pope Adrian L.,
above twenty years before, as we shall see in another
chapter.

809. Theodulphus, Bishop of Orleans in France,
has a Treatise of the Holy Ghost, with a preface to
Charles the Great, written at a time when the dispute
about the procession began to make disturbance. He
brings several testimonies in favour of the procession
from the Son out of Athanasius; and, among others,
a pretty large part of the Athanasian Creed, from the
words, ‘‘The Father is made of none,” &c.. to, ‘‘ He
therefore that will be saved must thus think of the
Trinity ’,”’ inclusive.

809. An anonymous writer of the same time, and
in the same cause, and directing himself to the same
prince, makes the like use of the Athanasian Creed,
in the following words: ‘‘St. Athanasius, in the Ex-
position of the Catholic faith, which that great master
wrote himself, and which the Universal Church pro-
fesses, declares the procession of the Holy Ghost from
the Father and Son, thus saying, ‘The Father is made
of none”,’”’ &c. This I cite upon the credit of Sirmon-
dus in his Notes to Theodulphus.

v “Item idem... . ‘ Pater a nullo est factus,’ &c., usque ad ‘ Qui
vult ergo Salvus esse,’”” &c.—Theodulph. de Spiritw Sancto, in
Sirmond. Oper., vol. ii. p. 978.

w “TIncertus Autor quem diximus, hoc ipso utens testimonio,
Beatus, inquit, Athanasius, in expositione Catholice fidei, quam

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 27

809. It was in the same year that the Latin Monks
of Mount Olivet wrote their apologetical letter to
Pope Leo III., justifying their doctrine of the pro-
cession from the Son, against one John of Jerusalem,
a monk too, of another monastery, and of an opposite
persuasion. Among other authorities they appeal to
the faith of Athanasius, that is, to the Creed, as we
now call it. This I have from Le Quien, the learned
editor of Damascen, who had the copy of that letter
from Baluzius, as he there signifies *.

820. Not long after, Hatto, otherwise called Hetto
and Ahyto, Bishop of Basil in France, composed his
Capitular, or Book of Constitutions, for the regulation
of the clergy of his diocese. Amongst other good rules,
this makes the fourth: ‘‘ That they should have the
Faith of Athanasius by heart, and recite it at the
Prime (that is, at seven o’clock in the morning) every
Lord’s Day 9.”

820. Agobardus of the same time, Archbishop of
Lyons, wrote against Felix Orgelitanus, where he occa-
sionally cites part of the Athanasian Creed. His words
are: ‘St. Athanasius says, that except a man doth

ipse egregius doctor conscripsit, et quam universalis confitetur
ecclesia, processionem Spiritus Sancti a Patre et Filio declarat,
ita dicens: ‘ Pater a nullo est factus,’” &c.—Sirmond, Oper., vol. i.
p. 978; cf. p. 967.

x “jn Regula Sancti Benedicti quam nobis dedit Filius vester
Domnus Karolus, que habet fidem scriptam de Sancta et insepa-
rabili Trinitate ; ‘Credo Spiritum Sanctum Deum verum ex patre
procedentem et filio:’ et in Dialogo quem nobis vestra Sanctitas
dare dignata est similiter dicit. Et in Fide 5. Athanasii eodem
modo dicit.” — Monachi de Monte Oliv., in Le Quien, Dissert.
Damase., p. 7.

y “Quarto, ut fides Sancti Athanasii a sacerdotibus discatur, et
ex corde Die Dominico ad Primam recitetur.”—Basil., Capzrtul., in
Harduin., vol. iv. p. 1241.

28 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

keep the Catholic faith whole and undefiled, without
doubt he shall perish everlastingly 7.”

852. In the same age flourished the famous Hinemar,
Archbishop of Rheims, who so often cites or refers to
the Creed we are speaking of, as a standing rule of
faith, that it may be needless to produce the particular
passages, I shall content myself with one only, more
considerable than the rest for the use that is to be
made of it hereafter. He directs his Presbyters “to
learn Athanasius’s Treatise of Faith (beginning with
‘ Whosoever will be saved’), to commit it to memory,
to understand its meaning, and to be able to give it
in common words?;” that is, I suppose, in the vulgar
tongue. He at the same time recommends the Lord’s
Prayer and (Apostles’) Creed», as I take it, without
mentioning the Nicene; which I particularly remark
for a reason to be seen above. It is farther observable
that though Hinemar here gives the Athanasian for-
mulary the name of a Treatise of Faith, yet he else-
where® scruples not to call it (Symbolum) a Creed ;
and he is, probably, as Sirmondus observes‘, the first

z “ Beatus Athanasius ait ; Fidem Catholicam nisi quis integram,
inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in externum peribit.” —
Agobard., adv. dogma Felicis, ¢. 3, in vol. i. p. 5.

a ἐς Unusquisque presbyterorum expositionem symboli atque Ora-
tionis dominice juxta Traditionem Orthodoxorum Patrum plenius
discat . .. Psalmorum etiam verba, et distinctiones regulariter, et
ex corde, cum Canticis consuetudinariis pronuntiare sciat. Necnon
et sermonem Athanasii de fide, cujus initium est, ‘ Quicunque vult
Salvus esse,’ memorize quisque commendet, sensum illius intelligat,
et verbis communibus enuntiare queat.”—Hinem., Capitula ad
presbyteros, i. 1, in vol. i. p. 710.

b Vid. Hinem., Opusc. ad Hinemar. Laudunensem, ο. 24, in vol.
ii. p. 474.

¢ ‘* Athanasius in Symbolo dicens,” &c.; id.,de Predestin., vol. i.
Ρ. 309.

4 Sirmond. | Not. in Theodulph., vol, ii. p. 978.

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 29

writer who gave it the name it bears at this day.
Which I suppose may have led Oudin into his mistake,
that no writer before Hincmar ever made mention of
this Creed*; a mistake, which, though taken notice
of by Tentzelius ‘ in the year 1687, he has nevertheless
again and again repeated in his last edition.

865. In the same age lived Anscharius, monk also of
Corbey, and afterwards Archbishop of Hamburg and
Bremen in Germany. Among his dying instructions
to his clergy, he left this for one; that they should
be careful to recite the Catholic faith composed by
Athanasius ὅ. This is reported by Rembertus, the
writer of his life, and successor to him in the same
see, who had been likewise monk of Corbey: so that
we have here two considerable testimonies in one.

868. Contemporary with these was Aineas Bishop of
Paris, who, in his Treatise against the Greeks, quotes
the Athanasian Creed under the name of Fides Ca-
tholica™, Catholic faith, producing the same paragraph
of it which Theodulphus had done sixty years before.

868. About the same time, and in the same cause,
Ratram or Bertram, monk of Corbey in France, made
the like use of this Creed, calling it, A Treatise of
the Faith’.

© Oudin, Comment. de Scriptor. Eccl., vol. i. pp. 345, 1322.

f Tentzel., Judic. Erud., p. 144.

g ‘Fratres.... admonuit ipse.... ut canerent Fidem Catholi-
cam a Beato Athanasio compositam.’’—Rembert., Vit. Anschar.,
p. 237.

h «Sanctus Athanasius, Alexandrine sedis Episcopus, &c....Item
idem in Fide Catholica: quod Spiritus Sanctus a Patre procedat, et
Filio. Patera nullo est factus,” &c.—Aineas Paris., adv. Grec., c.19.

i « Beatus Athanasius, Alexandrinus episcopus, in Libello de fide
quem edidit, et omnibus Catholicis tenendum proposuit inter
cetera sic ait; Pater a nullo est factus, nec creatus, nec geni-
tus,” &c.—Ratr., contra Grecor. oppos., lib. ii. ο. 3.

90 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

871. Adalbertus of this time, upon his nomination
to a Bishopric in the province of Rheims, was obliged
to give in a profession of his Faith to Archbishop
Hinemar. Among other things, he professes his great
regard to the Athanasian Creed (Sermo Athanasiv), as
a Creed received with great veneration by the Catholic
Church, or being of customary and venerable use in
it*. This testimony is considerable in regard to the
reception of this Creed; and not before taken notice
of, so far as I know, by those that have treated of this
argument.

889. This Creed is again mentioned in the same
age by Riculphus, Bishop of Soissons in France, in his
pastoral Charge to the Clergy of his diocese. He calls
it a Treatise (or Discourse) of Catholic Faith! This
I take from Father Harduin’s Councils, as -also the
former, with the dates of both.

960. Ratherius, Bishop of Verona in Italy in the
year 928, and afterwards of Liege in Germany in the
year 953, and restored to his See of Verona in the year
955, did after this time write instructions to his clergy
of Verona; in which he makes mention of all the
three Creeds, Apostolical, Nicene, and Athanasian ;
obliging his clergy to have them all by heart; which

k “Tn Sermone Beati Athanasii, quem Ecclesia Catholica vene-
rando usu frequentare consuevit, qui ita incipit ; ‘Quicunque vult
Salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam Fidem.’ Pro-
fessio Adalberti episcopi Morinensis futuri.”—Harduin., Conecil.,
vol. v. p. 1445.

1 “JTtem monemus, ut unusquisque vestrum Psalmos, et sermo-
nem fidei Catholice, cujus initium, ‘ Quicunque vult Salvus esse,’ et
canonem miss, et cantum, vel compotum, memoriter, et veraciter
et correcte tenere studeat.”—Riculf., Constitution 5, in Harduin,
vol. vi. p. 415.

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 91

shews that they were all of standing use in his time,
in his diocese at least ™.

997. Near the close of this century lived Abbo, or
Albo, Abbot of Fleury, or St. Benedict upon the Loire
in France. Upon some difference he had with Arnul-
phus, Bishop of Orleans, he wrote an apology which
he addressed to the two kings of France, Hugh and
Robert. In that apology he has a passage relating to
our purpose running thus: ‘‘I thought proper, in the
first place, to speak concerning the Faith, which I
have heard variously sung in alternate choirs, both in
France and in the Church of England. For some,
Τ think, say in the Athanasian form, ‘The Holy Ghost
is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor
created, but proceeding:’ who while they leave out
‘nor begotten,’ are persuaded that they are the more
conformable to Gregory’s Synodical Epistle, wherein it
is written that the ‘Holy Ghost is neither unbegotten,
nor begotten, but proceeding”.’”’ I have taken the
liberty of throwing in a word or two to make the sen-
tence run the clearer. What the author intends is,
that some scrupulous persons both in France and Eng-

m ‘Tpsam fidem, id est credulitatem Dei, trifarie parare memo-
riter festinetis: Hoe est, secundum Symbolum id est collationem
Apostolorum, sicut in Psalteriis correctis invenitur ; et illam que
ad missam canitur ; et illam Sancti Athanasii que ita incipit ; ‘ Qui-
cunque vult Salvus esse’... Sermonem, ut superius dixi, Athanasii
Episcopi de fide Trinitatis, cujus initium est, ‘Quicunque vult, me-
moriter teneat.’’— Ratherii, Synod. Hpist.,in Harduin, vol. vi. p. 791.

Ὁ “*Primitus de Fide dicendum credidi; quam alternantibus
choris et in Francia, et apud Anglorum Ecclesiam variari audivi.
Alii enim dicunt, ut arbitror, secundum Athanasium, ‘ Spiritus
Sanctus a Patre et Filio non factus, non creatus, sed procedens :’
qui dum id quod est nec genitus subtrahunt, Synodicam Domni
Gregorii se sequi credunt, ubi ita est scriptum; ‘Spiritus Sanctus

nec ingenitus est, nec genitus, sed’ procedens.’””—Abbo Floriacens.,
Apol. ad Francor. Reges, ο. 15.

92 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

land, recited the Athanasian Creed with some altera-
tion, leaving out two words to make it agree the
better, as they imagined, with Gregory’s synodical
instructions. As to their scruple herein, and the ground
of it, I shall say more of it in a proper place. All
I am to observe at present is, that this testimony is
full for the custom of alternate singing the Athana-
sian Creed at this time in the French and English
Churches. And indeed we shall meet with other as
full, and withal earlier evidence of the same custom,
when we come to treat of manuscripts in the following
chapters. To proceed with our ancient testimonies.

1047. In the next century we meet with Gualdo,
a monk of Corbey, who likewise wrote the Life of
Anscharius, but in verse, as Rembertus had before
done in prose. He also takes some notice of our Creed,
ascribing it to Athanasius 5,

1130. In the century following, Honorius, a scholas-
tic divine of the Church of Autun, in his book en-
titled ‘‘ The Pearl of the Soul” (which treats of the
sacred or Liturgic offices), reckons up the several
Creeds of the Church, making in all four: namely,
the Apostolical, the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan,
and the Athanasian. Of the last he observes, that
it was daily repeated at the Prime’. He ascribes it
to Athanasius of Alexandria, in the time of Theodo-
sius, where he is undoubtedly mistaken in his chro-
nology. For if he means the first Athanasius of Alex-

© **Catolicamque Fidem quam composuisse beatus

Fertur Athanasius.”—Gualdo, Vit. Ansch., ο. 107, p. 322.
P ‘*Quarto, fidem ‘ Quicunque vult,’ quotidie ad Primam iterat,

quam Athanasius Alexandrinus Episcopus, rogatu Theodosi1 Impe-
ratoris edidit.”—Honor., Gemm. Anima, lib. ii. ο. 59, p. 1086.

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 33

andria, he is too early for either of the Theodosiuses:
and if he means it of the second, he is as much too
late. But a slip in chronology might be pardonable
in that age, nor does it at all affect the truth of what
he attests of his own times.

1146. Otho, Bishop of Frisinghen in Bavaria, may
here be taken notice of, as being the first we have
met with who pretends to name the place where Atha-
nasius is supposed to have made this Creed, Triers, or
Treves, in Germany‘. It is no improbable conjecture
of M. Antelmi', that the copy of the Creed found at
Treves being very ancient, or the most ancient of any,
and from which many others were taken, might first
occasion the story of the Creed’s being made at Treves,
and by Athanasius himself, who by his exile thither
might render that place famous for his name to all
after ages.

1171. Arnoldus, in his Chronicle, informs us of an
Abbot of Brunswick, who attending the Duke of Bruns-
wick at this time in his journey into the East, had
some disputes with the Greeks at Constantinople upon
the Article of Procession, and pleaded the usual pas-
sage out of this Creed, whose words are to be seen in
the margin’. What is most to be noted is the title
of Symbolum Fidei, which now began to be common
to this form, as to the other Creeds.

4 ‘‘Tbidem manens in Ecclesia Treverorum sub Maximino ejus-
dem Ecclesiw Episcopo, ‘ Quicunque vult,’ &e., a quibusdam dicitur
edidisse.”—Otto Frising., Chronic., lib. iv. cap. 7, p. 44 (al. p. 75).

r Antelm. de Symb. Athan., p. 27.

s “Unde Athanasius in Symbolo Fidei: Spiritus Sanctus a Patre
et Filio non factus, nec creatus, nee genitus, sed procedens, Ecce
Spiritum Sanctum a Patre dicit procedere et a Filio.”—Henric.
Abb. apud Arnold., Chron. Slavor., lib. iii. c. 5, p. 248.

D

94 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

1178. Robertus Paululus, Presbyter of Amiens, in
the diocese of Rheims, speaking of the offices recited
at the Prime, observes that the piety of good Chris-
tians had thereunto added the Quicunque vult, that the
articles necessary to salvation might never be forgotten
any hour of the day *.

1190. Beleth, a celebrated Paris divine, is the oldest
writer that takes notice of this Creed being commonly
ascribed to Anastasius, though he himself ascribes it
to Athanasius". Tentzelius’ marks some differences
between the prints and the manuscripts of this author,
and betwixt one manuscript and another. But as the
difference, though in words considerable, is yet very
little in the sense, it is not material to our present
purpose to be more particular about it.

1200. I must not omit Nicolaus Hydruntinus, a na-
tive of Otranto in Italy, who sided with the Greeks,
and wrote in Greek against the Latins. He understood
both languages, and was often interpreter between the
Greeks and Latins in their disputes at Constantinople,
Athens, and Thessalonica*. He wrote several tracts,
out of which Leo Allatius has published some frag-
ments. ‘There is one relating to the Athanasian Creed,

t “His addidit fidelium devotio, ‘ Quicunque vult Salvus esse,’ ut
Articulorum Fidei qui sunt necessarii ad salutem, nulla diei hora
obliviscamur.”—Rob. Paulul., in Hugo de 8. Victor. de Offic. Ecel.,
lib. ii. c. 1, vol. iii. p. 223 (p. 265).

α ἐς Notandum est quatuor esse Symbola ; minimum quod a cunc-
tis communiter in quotidiana oratione dicitur, quod Apostoli simul
composuerunt. Secundum est quod in Prima recitatur, ‘ Quicunque
yult Salvus esse τ quod ab Athanasio Patriarcha Alexandrino contra
Arrianos hzereticos compositum est, licet plerique eum Anastasium
fuisse falso arbitrentur.’”—Beleth de Divin. Offic., ο. 40, (p. 334, ed.
Venet.).

v Tentzel., Judic. Hrud., p. 91.

x Fabric., Bibl. Grec., lib. v. ὁ. 42, ὃ 12, in vol. x. p. 293.

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 35

which must here be taken notice of; being of use for
the certifying us that this Creed was extant in Greek
at and before his time. It is this: ‘‘ They (the Greeks)
do not know who made the addition to the Faith of
Athanasius, styled Catholic; since the words, ‘and of
the Son,’ are not in the Greek (Form) nor in the Creed
(of Constantinople ¥).”’

From this passage we may learn that there was a
Greek copy of the Athanasian Creed at this time; that
it wanted the words ‘of the Son,” that it was looked
upon as Athanasius’s, and that the title was, ‘‘ The
Catholic Faith of St. Athanasius,” which is its most
usual title in the Latin copies. I may just hint to the
reader, that though both πίστις in the Greek and fides
in the Latin might justly be rendered Creed in Eng-
lish, rather than faith, whenever it stands for a formu-
lary or confession of faith as it does here; yet be-
cause I should otherwise want another English word
for σύμβολον in the Greek, and Symbolum in the Latin,
I therefore reserve the word Creed in this case for
distinction sake, to be the rendering of Symbolum, ΟΥ̓
σύμβολον, and nothing else. But to proceed.

1230. Alexander of Hales, in Gloucestershire, may
here deserye to be mentioned as shewing what Creeds
were then received in England. He reckons up three
only, not four, (as those that make the Nicene and
Constantinopolitan to be two,) namely, The Apostles’,
the Nicene or Constantinopolitan, and the Athana-

¥ Ὅτι καὶ αὐτοὶ ἀγνοοῦσι, τίς 6 πρασθήσας ἐν TH πίστει τοῦ ἁγίου
᾿Αθανασίου, τῇ καθολικῇ λεγομένῃ, ὡς ἐν τῷ ἑλληνικῷ οὐχὶ τοῦτο,
ὕπερ ἐστὶ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, περίεχεται, οὔτε ἐν τῷ TUUBdAW.—LeO
Allat. de Consens, Kecl. Occident., de., lib. iii. ec. 1, § 5, p. 887.

96 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

sian”, where we may observe that the Athanasian has
the name of a Creed, which yet was not its most usual
or common title in those times, only the schoolmen for
order and method sake chose to throw it under the
head of Creeds.

1238. I am next to take notice of the famed legates
of Pope Gregory 1X., (Haymo, Radolphus, Petrus, and
Hugo,) who produced this Creed in their conferences
with the Greeks at Constantinople. They asserted it
to be Athanasius’s, and made by him while an exile
in the Western parts, and penned in the Latin tongue *.
They had not assurance enough to pretend that it was
a Greek composition; there were too many and too
plain reasons to the contrary.

1240. In this age, Walter de Cantilupe, Bishop of
Worcester, in his Synodical Constitutions, exhorts his
clergy to make themselves competent masters of the
Psalm called Quicunque vult, and of the greater and
smaller Creed, (that is, Nicene and Apostolical,) that
they might be able to instruct their people’; from
whence we may observe that at this time the Athana-
sian formulary was distinguished here amongst us from
the Creeds properly so called, being named a Psalm,

z ““Notandum quod cum sint tria Svmbola: primum Apostolo-
rum, secundum patrum quod canitur in Missa, tertium Athanasii,
quod canitur in Prima.”— Alex. Ales., Pars iii. q. 82, § 5, in
vol. i. fol. 280.

a Ὁ ἅγιος ᾿Αθανάσιος ὅταν ἐν Tots μέρεσι τοῖς δυτικοῖς ἐξόριστος
ἣν, ἐν τῇ ἐκθέσει τὴς πίστεως. ἣν τοῖς λατινικοῖς ῥήμασι διεσάφησεν,
οὕτως ἔφη. ὋὉ πατὴρ ἀπ᾽ οὐδενός ἐστι, ὅσο. --- Vefinitio Apocri-
sariorum Greg. 1Χ., in Harduin, vol. vii. p. 157.

Ὁ «*Habeat etiam saltem quilibet eorum simplicem intellectum,
secundum quod continetur in Psalmo qui dicitur, Quicunque vult,
et tam in majori quam in minori Symbolo, ut in his plebem sibi
commissam noverint informare.”—Spelm., Conc., vol. ii. p. 246.

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 37

and sometimes a hymn, (as we shall see from other
evidences to be produced hereafter,) suitably to the
place it held in the Psalters among the other Hymns,
Psalms, and Canticles of the Church, being also sung
alternately in churches like the other.

1250. We may here also take notice of a just re-
mark made by Thomas Aquinas of this century: that
Athanasius whom he suj poses the author of this formu-
lary, did not draw it up im the way of a Creed, but
in a doctrinal form, which however was admitted by
the authority of the Roman see as containing a com-
plete system of Christian faith °.

1255. Walter de Kirkham, Bishop of Durham, in
his Constitutions, about this time, makes much the
same order that Walter Cantilupe had before done,
styling the Creed a Psalm also as usual *.

1286. Johannes Januensis, sometimes styled Johannes
Balbus, makes mention of this Creed in his Dictionary
or Catholicon, under the word Symbolum. He reckons,
up three Creeds, and in this order, Apostles’, Nicene,
and Athanasian. The name he gives to the last is
Symnbolum Athanasii, thrice repeated *,

ς ἐς Athanasius non composuit manifestationem Fidei per modum
Symboli, sed magis per modum cujusdam doctrine: sed quia in-
tegram Fidei veritatem ejus doctrina breviter continebat, au-
thoritate summi Pontificis est recepta, ut quasi regula Fidei habe-
atur.”—Aquinas, Secunda Secunde, q. 1. Art. 10, § 3, in vol. xi.
part 2, p. 8.

4 «*Habeat quoque unusquisque eorum simplicem intellectum
Fidei, sicut in Symbolo tam wajori quam munori; quod est in
Psalmo, ‘ Quicungue vult,’ et etiam ‘Credo in Deum,’ expressius
continentur.”—Spelm., Conc., vol. ii. p. 294.

ὁ ἐγ] sunt Symbola ; scilicet Apostolorum, quod dicitur in Ma-
tutinis, in Prima, et in Completorio: item Nicenum, quod dicitur
in diebus dominicis post Evangelium: item Athanasii, quod dici-
tur in Prima in dominicis diebus alta voce... . Symbolum autem
Athanasii quod contra Hereticos editum est, in Prima dicitur,
quasi jam pulsis Hereticorum tenebris.... Ad id editum est Sym-

98 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

1287. Ina synod of Exeter, in this century also, we
have mention again made of the Athanasian Creed
under the name of a Psalm, and as such distinguished
from the two Creeds‘ properly so called; though the
name of Psalm was also sometimes given to the Creeds,
and to the Lord’s Prayer’ likewise, since those also
were sung in the church.

1286. William Durants, or Durandus, the elder,
Bishop of Menda, in France, recounting the Creeds,
makes their number three, mentioning the Athanasian
in the second place between the Apostles’ and Nicene.
He follows the same tradition which Otho Frisingensis
did before, that this Creed was made at Triers or
Treves®. It is scarce worth noting that some copies
here read Anastasius, since the circumstances plainly
shew that Athanasius is the man intended, and that
Anastasius can be nothing else but a corrupt reading.

1330. Ludolphus Saxo, the Carthusian, numbers
three Creeds, with very brief but good hints of their
uses respectively: the Apostles’ useful for a short com-
pendious instruction in the faith; the Nicene, for

bolum Athanasii qui specialiter contra Hereticos se opposuit.”—
Johan. Januens., in voce Symbolum.

Ε ἐς Articulorum Fidei Christianorum saltem simplicem habeant
intellectum, prout in Psalmo, Quicunque vult, et in utroque Sym-
bolo continentur.”—Spelm., Conc., vol. 11. p. 370.

& Ina MS. of Trinity College, (called Rythmus Anglicus), written
about 1180, is a copy of the Apostles’ Creed, and another of the
Lord’s Prayer, with these titles: ‘The Salm the Me Clepeth Crede ;
The Salm that is cleped pr. nr.’ ‘This manner of speaking seems
to have been borrowed from the Germans; for Otfridus, as is
observed by Lambecius, gives the name of a Psalm to the Apostles’
Creed.—Lambec., Catal., vol. ii. p. 760.

h ἐς Nota, quod triplex est Symbolum. Primum est Symbolum
Apostolorum, quod vocatur Symbolum minus. ... Secundum Sym-
bolum est, ‘ Quicunque vult Salvus esse,’ &c., ab Athanasio, patri-
archa Alexandrino, in civitate Treviri compositum. .. . Tertium est
Niceenum quod.... vocatur Symbolum majus.” —Gul. Durant.,

Rational. Divin. Offic., lib. iv. ο. 25, §§ 6—9, p. 199.

c=
ice)

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES.

fuller explication; and the Athanasian, for guard or
defence‘ against heresies.

1837. William of Baldensal or Boldesale, a German
Knight, ought here to be mentioned as being the first
writer extant that ascribes the Creed to Eusebius, (of
Verceil, in Piedmont,) along with Athanasius. The
reason, I presume, was the better to account for the
Creed’s being originally Latin. Baldensal’s treatise,
being the History of Piedmont, wherein he makes the
remark, is not yet published I suppose; but Cardinal
Bona informs us that the manuscript was in his time
in the library of the Duke of Savoy, at Turin *.

1360. Manuel Caleca, a latinizing Greek, wrote a
treatise upon the Principles of the Catholic Faith,
published by Combefis, in his new Auctarium to the
Bibliotheca Patrum, tome the 2nd, where we find some
passages to our present purpose; particularly this, that
Caleca ascribes the Creed to Athanasius, and supposes
it to haye been presented by him to Pope Julius).
I know not whether he be not the first writcr that
mentions that circumstance, nor whether he reports it
from others, or from his own invention.

1960. About the same time Johannes Cyparissiota,

i “Tria sunt Symbola: primum Apostolorum ; secundum, Ni-
ceni Concilii: tertium, Athanasii, Primum factum est ad Fidei
Instructionem. Secundum, ad Fidei explanationem. ‘Tertium, ad
Fidei defensionem.”—Ludolph. Sax. de Vit. Christi, ο. 83, p. 732.

k “Tn hoe autem Symboio, sive componendo, sive e Greco in
Latinum traducendo Adjutorem tuisse Athanasio Kusebium, Ver-
cellensem episcopum, refert Gulielmus Baldesanus in Historia Pes
demontana, que manuscripta Taurini asservatur in Bibliotheca
Ducis Sabaudize, ex Tabulario Vercellensis Ecclesiz.’”—Bona de Di-
vin. Psalm., c. 16, § 18, p. 864.

1 Ταύτην yap ἐὰν ph τις πιστῶς πιστεύση, σωθῆναι ov δύναται,
ὡς ὁ μέγας ᾿Αθανάσιυς ἐν τῇ πρὸς ᾿Ιούλιον πάπαν Ῥώμης τῆς πί-
στεως ὁμολογίᾳ προσέθηκεν.--- δι] Calec., de Fid., ο. 10, p. 254.
Cf. Calec., Contr.. Grec., lib, ii. c. 20, p. 416.

40 HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

surnamed ‘the Wise,” wrote his Decads, which are pub-
lished in Latin in the Brbliotheques of Turrianus’s ver-
sion. What we are to observe from him is, that he
cites this Creed in the name of Athanasius, and as if
it were made at the Council of Nice™. It seems, after
it once passed current that Athanasius was the author,
there was great variety of conjectures about the place
where, and the time when, he composed or presented
this Creed.

1439. I shall mention but one more, as late as the
Council of Florence, or a little later, and that is
Johannes (afterwards Josephus) Plusiadenus, a latin-
izing Greek, who wrote a dialogue in defence of the
Latins. What is observable in him is, that he makes
the Creed to have been presented by Athanasius to
Pope Liberius, instead of Julius®.

I have now come low enough with the Ancient
Testimonies, if I may be allowed so to call those of the
later times. A few of the first and earliest might have
sufficed, had I no other point in view but the mere
antiquity of the Creed: but as my design is to treat of
its reception also in various places and at various
times, and to lay together several kind of evidences
which will require others, both early and late, to clear
up and explain them, it was, in a manner, necessary
for me to bring my accounts as low as I have here
done. Besides that several inferior incidental ques-

m “*Maonus Athanasius in expositione Fidei, in prima Synodo,
ait,” &¢.—Joan. Cypariss., Decad. ix. ¢. 3.

"‘O θεῖος τῷ ὄντι Kal ἱερὸς ᾿Αθανάσιος, ἐν TH ὁμολογία τῆς
ἑαυτοῦ πίστεως, ἥν ἐξέθετο πρὸς Λιβέριον Πάπαν, ἧς ἡ ἀρχὴ, ὅστις
ἂν βούληται σωθῆναι, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιόν φησιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ
τοῦ υἱοῦ, οὐ ποιητὺν, οὐ κτιστὸν, οὐδὲ γεννητὸν. ἀλλ᾽ ἐκπορευτόν.----
Plusiad., p. 628 (in Combef. not. ὧν Calec., p. 297).

ANCIENT TESTIMONIES. 41

tions will fall in our way, for the resolving of which
most of the testimonies I have here cited will be ser-
viceable in their turn, as will appear more fully in the
sequel. I have omitted several testimonies of the later
centuries, such as I thought might conveniently be
spared, either as containing nothing but what we had
before from others more ancient, or as being of no use
for the clearing up any that we have, or for the
settling any point which will come to be discussed in
the following sheets. The rule I have set myself
in making the collection, and which I have been most
careful to observe, was to take in all those, and none
but those, which are either valuable for their antiquity,
or have something new and particular upon the sub-
ject, or may strike some light into any doubtful ques-
tion thereunto relating.

I shall shut up this chapter, as I did the former,
with a Table, representing in one view the sum and
substance of what has been done in it. ‘The several
columns will contain the year of our Lord, the authors
here recited, the country where they lived, and the
title or titles by them given to the Creed. The titles
ought to appear in their original language wherein
they were written, which my English reader may the
more easily excuse, since they have most of them been
given in English above, where it was more proper to
do it. The use of such a Table will be seen as often
as a reader has a mind to look back to this chapter,
or to compare several evidences of different kinds,
proving the same thing one with another.

A TABLE OF THE ANCIENT TESTIMONIES.

A.D, Authors. Country. Title of the Creed.
670 |Council of Autun. France. | Fides Sancti Athanasii Preesulis.
760 |Articles Inqu. Regino.| Germany.|Sermo Athanasii Episcopi de Fide,
794 Counce. Franckfort. Germany. | Fides Catholica Sancte Trinitatis.
809 |Theodulphus. France.
809 | Anonymous. France. |Expositio Catholice Fidei, Athanasii.
809 |Monks of M. Olivet. | Judea. | Fides Sancti Athanasii.
820 |Hatto, or Hetto. France. |Fides Sancti Athanasil.
820 |Agobardus. France.
852 |Hinemar. France. |Sermo Athanasii de Fide,
Athanasii Symbolum.
865 | Anscharius. Germany.|Athanasii Fides Catholica.
868 | Bertram. France, |Libellus Athanasii de Fide.
868 | Aneas Paris. Franee, |Athanasii Fides Catholica.
871 | Adalbertus. France, |Sermo Beati Athanasii.
889 | Riculphus. France, |Sermo Fidei Catholice.
960 | Ratherius. Italy. SermoAthanasii Episc.de Fide Trinitatis.
997 | Abbo, or Albo, France. | Fides secundum Athanasium.
1047 |Gualdo. France. | Fides Catholica Athanasio adscripta.
1130 | Honorius. France. |Fides Quicunque vult.
1146 | Otho. Bavaria. |Quicunque vult, &e.
1171 | Duke of Brunswick. | Germany.|Athanasii Symbolum Fidei.
1178 |Robertus Paululus. France. |Quicunque vult, &c.
1190 | Beleth. France. | Athanasii Symbolum.
1200 |Nic. Hydruntinus. Italy. Tod ἁγίου ᾿Αθανασίου πίστις ἡ ΚΚαθολική.
1230 | Alexander Alens. England. | Athanasii Symbolum.
1233 |P. Gregory’s Legates. "ExOeots τῆς πίστεως.
1240 | Walter Cantilupe. England. | Psalmus Quicunque, &e.
1250 |Thom. Aquinas. Italy. Athanasii Manifestatio Fidei.
1255 | Walter Kirkham, England. |Psalmus Quicunque, &ce.
1286 |Jobhn Januensis. Italy. Symbolum Atbanasii.
1286 |Durandus. Franee. |Athanasii Symbolum.
1287 | Exon. Synod. England. |Psalmus Quicunque.
1330 |Ludolphus. Saxony. |Athanasii Symbolum.
1337 | Baldensal. | Germany. | Athanasii Symbolum,
1360 | Man. Caleca. Greece. |‘H τῆς πίστεως ὁμολογία τοῦ ᾿Αθανασίου.
1360 | Joan. Cyparissiota. Greece, |Athanasii Expositio Fidei.
1439 |Joan. Plusiadenus. |Greece. Ἢ τῆς πίστεως ὁμολογία τοῦ ᾿Αθανασίου.

CHAPTER III.

ANCIENT CoMMENTATORS AND PARAPHRASTS UPON THE
ATHANASIAN CREED.

Awncrent Comments, or Paraphrases, may be properly
mentioned after Ancient Testimonies, being near akin
to them, and almost the same thing with them. I call
none ancient but such as were made before the year
1500, and therefore shall carry my accounts no lower,
nor quite so low as that time.

A.D. 570. The first comment to be met with on this
Creed is one of the sixth century, composed by Venan-
tius Fortunatus, an Italian by birth, but one that
travelled into France and Germany, became acquainted
with the most eminent scholars and prelates all over
the West, and was at length made Bishop of Poictiers
in France. His comment on this Creed has been pub-
lished from a manuscript about 600 years old*, out of
the Ambrosian Library at Milan, by Muratorius, in his
second tome of Anecdota, in the year 1698. There
can be no reasonable doubt but that the comment
really belongs to the man whose name it bears. 1. Be-

« “Est porro nobis in Ambrosiana Bibliotheca Membranaceus
Codex annos abhine ferme sexcentos manu descriptus; ut ex cha-
racterum forma, aliisque conjecturis affirmari posse mihi videtur.
Heie, praeter alia opuscula multa, Tres Symboli expositiones ha-
bentur, quarum unam tantum nune publici juris facio.

“Prima ita inscribitur, Expositio Fidei Catholice. Alteri nullus
titulus prvefixus est. Postrema vero hunc pre se fert ; Expositio
Fidei Catholic Fortunati. ... Fortunatus autem, heic memoratus,
alius a Venantio Fortunato non est, quem Insulze Pictaviensis Ec-

clesie, quem Christiane poetices ornamenta zternitate donarunt.”
—Murator., Anecdot., vol. ii. p. 228.

44 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

cause in the same book there is also a comment upon
the Apostles’ Creed” ascribed to Fortunatus, and which
is known to belong to Venantius Fortunatus, and has
been before printed among his other works. 2. Because
it appears highly probable, from what Venantius For-
tunatus has occasionally dropped in his other un-
doubted works*, that he was really acquainted with
the Athanasian Creed, and borrowed expressions from
it. 8. Because in the expositions of the Apostles’ and
Athanasian Creeds, there is great similitude of style,
thoughts, and expressions, which shews that both are
of the same hand, and indeed, the other circumstances
considered, abundantly proves it. It would burden
my margin too much, otherwise it were easy to give
at least half-a-dozen plain specimens, where either the
expressions, or turn of thought, or both, are exactly

b “Expositionem quoque continet (Codex Ambrosianus) Aposto-
lici Symboli, cum hae inscriptione: Incipit expositio a Fortunato
Presbytero conscripta. Kadem vero est ac edita inter Fortunati
Opera. Tum sequuntur gemine ejusdem Symboli explicationes,
tres Orationis Dominic, et duze Athanasiani Symboli expositiones
incertis auctoribus script, tandem, ut diximus, Expositio Fidei
Catholice Fortunati legitur. Quocirco quin ad Venantium quoque
Fortunatum opusculum hoe sit referendum, nullus dubito.” —
Murator., Anecdot., vol. ii. p. 331.

¢ “Preclarum in primordio ponitur celestis testimonii funda-
mentum, quia Salvus esse non poterit, qui recte de Salute non cre-
- diderit.”—Fortunat., Lxpos. Symb. Apost. in Bibl. Max. PP., vol. x.
p. 592.

‘*Non Deus in carnem est versus, Deus accipit artus:
Non se permutans, sed sibi membra levans.
Unus in ambabus naturis, verus in ipsis
AEqualis matri hine, par Deitate Patri.
Non sua confundens, sibi nostra sed omnia nectens.
De patre natus habens divina, humanaque matris,
De patre sublimis, de genetrice humilis.”
Fortunat., 110. viii, Carm. v., vv. 33, &c.; in Bibl. Max. PP., vol. x.
p.o74.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 45

parallel. Such as think it of moment to examine,
may easily be satisfied by comparing the comment on
the Apostles’ Creed, in the tenth tome of the last
Bibliotheque, with the comment on the Athanasian in
Muratorius. 4. I may add, that the tenour of the
whole comment, and the simplicity of the style and
thoughts, are very suitable to that age, and more so
than to the centuries following. These reasons con-
vince me that this comment belongs to Venantius
Fortunatus, composed by him after his going into
France, and before he was Bishop of Poictiers, and so
we may probably fix the date of it about the year 570,
or perhaps higher. There is an older manuscript copy
of this comment (as I find by comparing) in the
Museum at Oxford, among Junius’s manuscripts, num-
ber 25%. I am obliged to the very worthy and learned
Dr. Haywood, for sending me a transcript of it, with
a specimen of the character. It is reasonably judged
to be about 800 years old. It wants in the beginning
about ten or a dozen lines: in the other parts it agrees
with Muratorius’s copy, saving only some slight in-
sertions and such various lections as are to be expected
in different manuscripts not copied one from the other.
From the two copies compared may be drawn out
a much more correct comment than that which Mura-
torius has given us from one, as will be shewn at the
end of this work.

I intimated above, that Muratorius supposes this
Venantius Fortunatus to be the author not of the
comment only, but Creed also. But his reasons which
plead strongly for the former are of no force at all in

4 The title, Lxpositio in Fide Catholica.

46 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

respect of the latter, which he is so sensible of him-
self, that while he speaks with great assurance of the
one, he is very diffident of the other®. And indeed,
not to mention several other considerations standing
in the way of his conjecture, who can imagine Venan-
tius Fortunatus to have been so vain as, after com-
menting on the Lord’s Prayer and Apostles’ Creed, to
fall to commenting upon a composition of his own?

This comment of Fortunatus is a great confirmation
of what hath been above cited from the Council of
Autun; for if the Creed was noted enough to deserve
a comment upon it so early as the year 570, no wonder
if we find it strongly recommended by that Council in
the year 670, a hundred years after. And it is ob-
servable that as that Council recommends the Apo-
stolical and Athanasian Creeds, without saying a word
of the Nicene; so Fortunatus, before them, comments
upon those two only, taking no notice of the third.

I cannot take leave of this comment without ob-
serving to the reader, that in Pareus’s Notes on this
Creed, I have met with a passage which I am not well
able to account for. He cites a comment upon this
Creed under the name of Euphronius Presbyter!; does
not say whether from a print or a manuscript; but

e “Hujus Symboli auctor esse potuit Venantius Fortunatus:
saltem fuit is hujus Expositionis auctor.”—Murator., Anecdot., vol.
ii. p. 217.

**Non ita meis conjecturis plaudo, ut facilius non arbitrer Expo-
sitionem potius quam Symbolum huic auctori tribuendam.” —
Id., Ὁ. 231.

f «* Kuphronius presbyter in expositione hujus Symboli Athanasii,
Fides, inquit, Catholica, seu universalis, dicitur: hoc est, recta,
quam Ecclesia universa tenere debet.” — David. Parei not. ad
Symb. Athan., p. 118. Edit. An. 1635. The words are not in the
edition of 1627,

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 47

the words he produces are in this very comment of
Fortunatus. Who this Euphronius is I can nowhere
find; nor whether an ancient or modern writer. There
was an Euphronius Presbyter (mentioned by Gregory
of Tours), who lived in the fifth century, and was at
length Bishop of Autun; but I never heard of any
writings of his more than an epistle ascribed to him
and Lupus of Troyes. There was another Euphronius,
who was Bishop of Tours, with whom Fortunatus had
some intimacy: whether his name appearing in any
MS. copy of Fortunatus’s tracts, might occasion the
mistake, I know not. Bruno’s comment has the very
same passage which Pareus cites, only in a different
order of the words; but neither will this help us to ac-
count for its beg quoted under the name of Euphro-
nius Presbyter, which has no similitude with the name
of Bruno, Bishop of Wurtzburgh. I would not, how-
ever, omit the mentioning this note of Pareus, be-
cause a hint may sometimes lead to useful discoveries,
and others may be able to resolve the doubt though
I am not.

852. Our next commentator, or rather paraphrast,
is Hincmar of Rheims: not upon the whole Creed,
but upon such parts only as he had occasion to cite;
for his way is to throw in several words of his own,
as explanatory notes, so far as he quotes the Creed §.
And he sometimes does it more than he ought to have
done to serve a cause against Gothescaleus, which I
may hint in passing; to say more of it would be fo-
reign to our present purpose.

ε Hinem. de non Trin. Deit., ec. 2, 4, 18, in vol. i. pp. 452, 464,
469, 552, 553.

48 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

1033. 5. Bruno, Bishop of Wurtzburgh in Germany,
has a formal comment, and much larger than Fortu-
natus’s, upon the Athanasian Creed. It is at the end
of his Psalter, and has been several times printed with
it. Father Le Long reckons up six editions" in this
order :—1. At Nuremberg, in folio, a.p. 1494. 2. By
Antonius Koburger, in quarto, a.p. 1497. 3. By
Cochleus, at Wurtzburgh, in quarto, a.p. 1591. 4. At
Leipsic, in quarto, 1533. 5. In the Cologne Sr-
bliotheque, a.D. 1618, tom. xi." 6. In the Lyons
Bibl. PP., a.p. 1677, tom. xviii. -The old editions are
scarce and not easy to be met with. IJ have seen two
of them in our Public Library at Cambridge, those of
1494 and 1583. There is an elegant one of the former
(as I conceive by the description sent me by a learned
gentleman), in the Bodleian, at Oxford: it is im vel-
lum, in a black and red letter, reserved among the
manuscripts, and marked Laud KE. 81. The title at
the beginning, J%des Anastasiii; at the end, Fides
Athanasti. The two editions of 1497 and 1581 I
never saw. I have seen one by Antonius Koberger, in
quarto, bearing date a.p. 1494*, in the Bodleian, marked

bh <*Qommentarii in totum Psalterium et in Cantica Vet. et N.

Testamenti, in fol. Norembergze, 1494. In quarto, per Antonium
Koburger, 1497. Idem a Joan. Cochleo restitutum in quarto,
Herbipoli, 1531. Lipsiz, 1533, Bibl. PP, Coloniensis et Lugdunen-
sis.” —Le Long, Bibl. Sacr., vol. ii. p. 674.

i Bibliotheca Magna Veterum Patrum, 15 vols. fol. Col. 1618.

ij ‘ Anastasii’ is evidently a mere misprint, as in the body of the
comment the name of Athanasius occurs throughout. The only
copy of this edition now in the Bodleian, so exactly corresponds
with the details given by Dr. Waterland of the two which he de-
scribes as distinct, that it seems probable that he is mistaken on
this point. It is now marked Auct. Q. 1, 5, 19. The edition of
1497 is also in the Bodleian.

k «Per Antonium Koberger impressum Anno incarnationis Deita-
tis millesimo quadringentesimo, nonagesimo quarto, finit feliciter.”

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 49

F. 40. Bishop Usher makes mention of an edition in
1591}, and seems to have known of none older, I
should have suspected 1531 to be a false print for 1533,
had not Le Long confirmed it that there is such an
edition as 1531, and named the place where it was
printed; though I cannot but observe that he makes
a folio of it in his first tome™, and a quarto in the
second, which is to me an argument that he had never
seen it, but perhaps took the hint from Usher. But
leaving the printed editions of this comment of Bruno’s,
let us next say something of the manuscripts of it, and
their differences from the prints, or from each other.
There are many manuscript copies which I shall men-
tion in order.

1. The first and most valuable manuscript is in the
library of Wurtzburgh, as old as the author, left by him
as a legacy to that Church. The first printed edition
(if I mistake not), was taken from that very original
manuscript", which at the lowest computation must

1 ἐς Psalterii editio vulgata Latina, obelis et asteriscis distincta,
eum Brunonis Herbipolensis Episcopi co:nmentariis, Anno 1531,
a Johanne Cochleo in lucem est emissa.’”’—Usser de Hditione LXX.
Interpr., p. 104.

m “Psalterium vetus obelis et asteriscis distinctum, cum Com-
mentariis 8. Brunonis, studio Johannis Cochlei editum, in fol. Her-
bipoli, 1531, in quarto Lipsiz 1553.” —Le Long, Bibl. Sacr.,
vol. i. p. 274.

» ἐς Posteris Filiis suis (S. Bruno) memorabilem et sanctum Psal-
morum Librum, ex quo ille impressus est, sumptuose scriptum, quasi
hereditatis spiritualis non minimam portionem reliquit.”—Prolog.
ad Editionem Anni 1494,

“‘Preciosum istum pietatis Thesaurum posteritati post se reli-
quit, et quidem insigni scriptura sumptuose descriptum . .. extat Do-
num illud memorabile et conspicuum in locuplete antiquorum volu-
minum Bibliotheca Ecclesie Herbipolensis: quod sane religiosa
pietate, velut Hereditas quedam hujus Sancti Patris Custoditur.”
—Joan. Cochl., Prolog. ad Edit. Ann, 1833, in Bibl. Max. PP.,
vol. xviii, p. 65.

E

50 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

be 680 years old. The title of the Creed, Fides Catho-
lica S. Athanasii Episcopt.

2. There is a second which I have seen in Trinity
College, in Cambridge, annexed to a Psalter described
at large by the learned Mr. Wanley in his catalogue ®,
and judged by him to have been written about the
time of King Stephen; so that this is about a hundred
years later than the former, or about 580 years old.
No title to the Creed.

3. There is a third of much the same age with
the former, or some years older, in the Bodleian, at
Oxford, marked Laud, H. 61. Catal. No. 1824. The
title of the Creed, Fides Catholica Sancti Athanasii
Episcopi *.

4. In the Bodleian also is another, (Laud. E. 71.
Catal. No. 9944.) Athanasii Symbolum cum Glossis.
This, as I am certified by a learned gentleman, is
Bruno’s comment. The title of the Creed, Fides Sancti
Athanasti Episcopt.

5. In Merton College is another, an ancient copy
of Bruno’s comment, Catal. No. 675—208, (P. 1, ὅτ.)

6. In St. John Baptist’s College, Oxon. (Catal. No.
1874, G. 428.) Commentarius in Symbolum Athanasii.
By the beginning and concluding words (a transcript
of which has been sent me by a worthy member of

ο Wanley, Catalog. MSS. Septentr., Ὁ. 168.

P No, 96 in Mr. Coxe’s Catalogue, ana referred by him to the end
of the eleventh century. It formerly belonged to the Church of
St. Kykian, in Wurtzburgh.

4 No. 17 in Mr. Coxe’s Catalogue, and referred by him to the
twelfth century.

r No. 208 in Mr. Coxe’s Catalogue, and referred by him to the
thirteenth century.

5. No. 31 in Mr. Coxe’s Catalogue, and referred by him to the
thirteenth century.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 51

that society) I am well assured that it is Bruno’s
comment.

7. There is another in Balliol College (Catal. No. 210.
marked B. 9*.) Athanasit Symbolum cum Commentario.

8. Another I have seen in the Cathedral library at
York, which may be 500 years old. No title.

9. There is another in the library of St. German
de Prez, about 500 years old. Montfaucon, having
met with it, published it" as an Anecdoton; not know-
ing that it was Bruno’s comment. It is not indeed quite
‘so full, nor anything near so correct as the printed
copy: but still it is plainly Bruno’s comment, the
title, Tractatus de Fide Catholica.

10. There is also in my Lord Oxford’s library ¥,
a modern manuscript of this comment, written at
Augsburg, in the year 1547: copied from Bruno’s
original MS. (by order of Charles Peutenger, son to
the famous Conrad), where the title is, Hides Catholica
Sancti Anastasii Episcopt. The mistake of Anastasii
for Athanasii, we find, had crept into the German
copies some centuries before: wherefore this is not
to be wondered at. All the older copies, as well as
the original manuscript, have Athanasi in the title,
where there is a title, and Athanasius in the beginning
of the comment.

The manuscripts which I have here recited, all but
the first, seem now to be of no great use; if it be true,
as I suppose, that the first prints were taken from the

t No. 32 in Mr. Coxe’s Catalogue, and referred by him to the
end of the twelfth century. He describes it as Symbolum Athana-
sianum cum commento Brunonis Herbipolensis.

α Montfaucon, Athanas. Oper., vol. ii. p. 735.
v Now the Harleian Collection in the British Museum.

52 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

very original at Wurtzburgh. It is certain that they
are very imperfect, and uncorrect (I have collated
three of them) in comparison of the printed copies:
I could not observe above two or three places, and
those not very material, where the printed conies seem
to have followed a false reading, or may be corrected
by those manuscripts. One thing I a little wondered
at, that the three manuscripts of St. Germans, Trinity
College, and York, should all leave out some para-
graphs which appear in the printed copies, and the
same paragraphs: but I have since found that those
very paragraphs were taken out of Fortunatus’s com-
ment, and belong not properly to Bruno’s. This, I
presume, the first copiers understood, and therefore
omitted them. Probably Bruno’s own copy might at
first want them, (though they must have been added
soon after,) or, if Bruno himself inserted them, yet he
had left some mark of distinction which was understood
at that time, though not by the editors of this comment
so many years after. But to proceed.

1120. In the next age, the famous Peter Abelard
wrote comments upon this Creed, which are printed
amongst his other works. The title in the prints is,
Petri Abaélardi Expositio Fidei, in Symbolum Athanasii.
I suspect that the editor has added the latter part, 7a
Symbolum Athanasvi, as a hint to the reader. The
comment is a very short one, scarce three pages in
quarto, and, for the age it was wrote in, a pretty
good one ; though, as I conceive from some flaws in it,
printed from a copy not very correct.

1170. Of the same century is Hildegarde, the ecle-
brated Abbess of St. Rupert’s Mount, near Binghen on

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 53

the Rhine. She wrote “" Explications of St. Benedict’s
Rule, and of the Athanasian Creed,’ which may be
seen, Bibl. Max. PP., vol. xxiii. p. 596.

1210. Simon Tornacensis, priest of Tournay, in the
beginning of the thirteenth century taught divinity at
Paris with great reputation, His manuscript works
are in many libraries, and among his other writings
there is ‘‘An Exposition of the Athanasian Creed *.”
Oudin reckons up four manuscript copies of it, in as
many distinct libraries, and acquaints us where they
are to be found, and of what age they probably are.

1215. Contemporary with the former is Alexander
Neckham, an Englishman, Abbot of Cirencester, or
Circeter, in Gloucestershire. He wrote a comment on
the Athanasian Creed, which is extant in manuscript,
in the Bodleian, at Oxford, (marked E. 7, 8. Catal. No.
2339.) co-eval, probably, with the author’.

There is another copy of the same comment in the
Bodleian also, E. 6. 11. No. 2330. The title, Exposztvo
Fidei Catholice a Magistro Alexandro Edicta. ‘'Yhis
copy is abuut fifty years later than the former. It may
be of use to note down the first words of the comment ’.
It is drawn up in the scholastic way, and is pretty
large, making ten folio leaves with double columns, in
E. 7, 8. and four folio leaves with three columns, and
a very small hand in Εἰ. 6. 11.

x “‘ Expositio Symboli, per Simonem Tornacensis Ecclesiae Cano-
nicum, et Parisiensem Doctorem, que incipit ; Apud Aristotelem
argumentum est ratio faciens fidem, sed apud Christum argumen-
tum est fides faciens ra:ionem.’’—Ouuin, De Scriptor. Lccles., vol.
iii. p. 5.

y Tue title of this copy is, Hxpositio super Symbolum A thanasi.

2 * Hee est enim victoria que vineit mundum, fides nustra, dSig-
nanter dicit ‘ vult,’ et non dicit, ‘ Quicunque Salvus erit.’”

δ4 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

1230. Not long after, Alexander Hales, before men-
tioned, wrote comments upon the same Creed, which
are published in his Swmma, part the third, under
Quest. 82. His method of commenting is, to raise
doubts and scruples all the way he goes, and to answer
them in the seholastie form ; referring sometimes to the
Fathers of the Church, and particularly to St. Austin,
to whom he ascribes Gennadius’s treatise de LHeclesias-
ticis Dogmatibus, according to the common error of that
time. But I proceed.

1340. There is another commentary upon this Creed,
written, as is said, by Richardus Hampolus, Richard
Rolle, of Hampole, a native of Yorkshire, and a monk
of the order of St. Austin. It contains, in a manner,
Bruno’s comment entire, with several additions and in-
sertions, either of the author’s own, or sueh as he had
borrowed elsewhere. It has been twice printed, first
at Cologne, in the year 1536, and afterwards in the
Bibl. Max. PP., vol. xxvi. p. 624.

I am in doubt concerning the author of that com-
ment, having reason to believe that the three copies
mentioned by Tentzelius*, preserved in the Gotha,
Basil, and Leipsic libraries, are so many copies of this
very comment which passes under the name of Ham-
pole, and yet one of them is judged to be above 500
years older® than 1686, which is 150 years before

a Tentzel., Jud. Erud., Prefat. et p. 224.

Ὁ Tentzelius writes thus :—‘‘ Opportune ad manus meas pervenit
respousio Ampl. Felleri, qua rationem Codicis Latini Lipsiensis in
prefatione a me citati prolixius exposuit. Ait enim, membrana-
ceum istum codicem ante CCCCC. annos et ultra, elezanter scrip-
tum videri ; additas etiam esse non interlineares tantum notas, sed
et marginales utrinque ; in dextro videlicet et sinistro paginarum
latere: rubricam autem Symboli nostri ita se habere ; Fides Anas-

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 55

Hampole’s days. It is possible that Joachim Fellerus,
the compiler of the catalogue of the Leipsic library,
might mistake in judging of the age of the manuscript,
but it appears much more probable that the editors of
that comment were mistaken in ascribing it to Ham-
pole. However that be, I would here observe, that
there is in Magdalen College, in Oxford, a comment
intituled Lxpositio in Symbolum Athanasianum per Ja-
nuensem (Catal. No. 2256, 115°) which is no other
than this very ¢ mment that passes in the prints under
the name of Rich. Hampole. The catalogue’s ascribing
it to Januensis, was owing, I suppose, to an occasional
passage in that manuscript relating to the Athanasian
Creed, cited from Johannes Januensis’s Catholicon, or
dictionary, under the word Symbolum. The comment,
however, I say, is the same with that which passes for
Hampole’s, as may plainly appear from the beginning
of it, which I have transcribed into the margin’; only
filling up an omission in it, occasioned, as is very com-
mon, by the repetition of the same word. There may
be a good use made of that manuscript in Magdalen
tasii Pape. In dextro prime pagine hee legi verba: Hee ratio
Fidei Catholic traditur in veteribus Codicibus, et reliqua, qu
antea ex MS. Bibliothece Ducalisattuli, Unde patet, easdem plane
Glossas in utrogue Codice reperiri; presertim quum in sinistro
alterius margine, hec etiam verba legi referat Fellerus: Hic beatus
Anastasius liberum arbitrium posuit,” &¢.—/b., p. 225,

¢ No. 115 in Mr. Coxe’s Catalogue, and referred by him to the
beginning of the fifteenth century.

4 “ Heee ratio Fidei Catholice traditur etiam in veteribus Codic -
bus a beato Athanasio Alexandrino conscripta. Et puto, quod
idcirco tam plano et brevi sermone tradita sit, ut omnibus Catuolicis,
et minus eruditis, tutamen defensionis prestaret adversus illam tem-
pestatem [quam contrarius ventus, hoc est, diabolus, excitavit per
Arrium ; quam tempestatem] qui fugere desiderat, hance Fidei uni-
tatem (al. veritatem) integram et inviolabilem teneat. Ita enim

incipit ipsum opusculum, dicens, ‘ Quicunque vult Salvus,’ &. Hie
beatus Athanasius liberum arbitrium posuit,”’ &c.

56 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

College, for correcting the printed copy, which is very
faulty both in words and order. The comment ought
to begin as it begins in that manuscript, and not with
the words, Je beatus Athanasius, as in the prints.
The editors did not understand, or did not consider,
the nature and composition of that comment. The
author, whoever he was, had made two columns, one
on each hand, with tne Athanasian Creed in the
middle. On the left-hand, which is the first place,
he set Bruno’s comment, and on the right-hand, in
the other column, he carried down another comment
either of his own or borrowed. The first note on the
right-hand was plainly designed for an introduction
to the rest, and therefore ought to be set first, though
the editors, considering only the position of the notes,
began from the left-hand, with the first words of
Bruno’s comment. ‘The Oxford copy observes the true
natural order, and may very probably be of good use
all the way through for the better digesting and metho-
dizing that comment or comments, being in reality two
comments mixed and blended together.

I should observe of the Oxford copy, that after the
comment there is in the same hand this note, /Z@e con-
seripta sunt a quodam antiquo libro. Possibly this may
be of some use for the determining whether that com-
ment be really Hampole’s or no. For if the manu-
script be not much later than 1415 (it must be so late,
since it fixes that very date to Dr. Ullerston’s Exposi-
tion of the Six Psalins) it may be probably argued
that anything of Hampole’s, who flourished but about
eighty years before, would not have been called anti-
quus liber, an ‘ancient book.’ But this I leave to

THE ATHANASIAN CREED, 57

farther enquiries, not insisting upon it, since the argu-
ment is but probable at the best; and I do not know
but the manuscript may be several years later than
1415, though hardly later than the middle of that
century. Ullerston is undoubtedly the latest author
in that collection. Petrus Florissiensis, or Floreftiensis
(otherwise called Petrus de Harentals), wrote in 1374°:
Januensis, Gorrham, Lyra, and Hampole are all older
than he: the last, therefore, is Ullerston, who was pro-
bably still living when that manuscript was written.
But enough of this.

1380. To the Latin comments here mentioned I may
add an English one, which I may suppose to be Wickliff’s.
If it be not his, yet certainly it is of his time, and not
far from the middle of the fourteenth century. I will
first give some account of this English comment, and
then shew both why I ascribe it to Wickliff, and why
I do it not with full assurance, but with some degree
of diffidence. I first met with it in a manuscript
volume (in 12mo.) belonging to the library of St. John’s
College in Cambridge. The volume contains an Kng-
lish version of the Psalms and Hymns of the Church,
with the Athanasian Creed, produced paragraph by
paragraph in Latin, interspersed with an Engli-h ver-
sion of each paragraph, and commented upon quite
through, part by part. After the comment follow
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, and
Ecclesiasticus, all in old English, without gloss or
comment. Now the reasons why I incline to ascribe
the comment to Wickliff are these :—

1. Dr. Langbaine, of Queen’s College in Oxford, in

e See Oudin, de Scriptor. Eccles., vol. iii. p. 1218.

δ8 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

a letter to Bishop Usher bearing date a.p. 1647, testi-
fies that he had seen such a comment, and that he
found it to be Wickliff’s by comparing the beginning
of it with Bale’. This, very probably, is the same
comment, though there is no such manuscript now
in Magdalen College, Oxon., as was in Dr. Langbaine’s
time.

2. All those parts of Scripture which go before and
after this comment in the same volume, are of the
same version with that of Wickliff’s Bible in the library
of Emmanuel College, without any difference (except
that St. John’s copy, being older, retains the more
ancient spelling,) as I am well assured by comparing
them together, so that if those parts be Wickliff’s, it
may appear very probable that the comment is his too,
Indeed, our very learned Wharton was of opinion that
the version commonly ascribed to Wickliff* was really
John Trevisa’s, who flourished in the time of Richard
the Second, was a Cornish man by birth, and Vicar of
Berkely in Gloucestershire about the year 1887"; in
which year he finished his translation of the Poly-
chronicon. But Mr. Wharton’s reasonings in this matter
have appeared to others not satisfactory!, and have in

f ‘¢ While I was there (in Magdalen College Library), tumbling
amongst their books, I light upon an old English comment upon
the Psalms, the Hymns of the Church, and Athanasius’s Creed ;
which I presently conjectured (though there be no name to it) to
be Wickliff’s. And comparing the beginning with Bale, found
that I had not erred in the conjecture.” —Langbaine, among Usher’s
Letters, p. 513.

g Wharton, “ποίαν. Histor. Dogmat., p. 425—427.

Β Τὴ that year he finished his version of Higden’s Polychronicon,
as the MSS. testify: and as is plain from its being finished in the
thirty-fifth year of Thomas Lord Berkely, the fourth of that name,
which agrees exactly with that year, and with no other.

i Oudin, de Scriptor. Hecles., vol. iii. p. 1044.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 59

part been confuted*. I shall not enter far into that
dispute, being almost foreign to my purpose, and it
is not very material whether Wickliff or Trevisa (if
either) be judged the author of the comment. This
only I may observe by the way, that Mr. Wharton’s
argument, drawn from the Norfolk manuscript of the
Gospels (Cud. 254), which he is positive belongs to
Wickliff, appears to be of some weight, so far as con-
cerns the New Testament, and the inference may reach
to several parts of the Old Testament also. Either
Mr. Wharton must have been mistaken in ascribing
the Norfolk copy to Wickliff, or else, for anything
I see, his argument will stand good. The charac-
teristic which he lays down whereby to distinguish
Wickhiff’s version (namely, the frequent insertion of
synonymous words) will by no means agree with the
common version: and then the specimen he gives of
the two different renderings of Luke ii. 7, is directly
contrary’, But a fuller discussion of that point may
be left with those who have more leisure, and have
more particularly studied it. Iam content to suppose
that the common version ascribed to Wickliff is really
his: perhaps he might give two editions of it™; or

k Le Long, Bibl. Sacr., vol. i. p. 426.

1 Wickletus sic reddit: ‘‘And puttide Him in a Cratche; for
place was not to Him in the comyn Stable.”

Alter interpres sic: ‘‘ And leide Him in a Cratche ; for there was
no place to Him in no Chaumbre.”—Wharton, p. 426.

Ihave a manuscript of the New Testament, belonying to our
College library, which reads Luke ii. 7 according to the first
reading, and which has many instances of synonymous insertious
everywhere: it is a different version from that which is commonly
ascribed to Wickliff.

m ‘« Patet, aut antiquiorem fuisse quandam Κ΄. Scripture transla-

tionem Anglicam, aut duplicem tuisse translationis Wicleviane
Editionem.”—Wharton, p. 436.

60 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

else Trevisa’s may be little more than Wickliff’s ver-
sion, corrected and polished with great liberty, both
as to sense and expression, where it appeared needful.
That Trevisa really did translate the whole Bible into
English, is positively asserted by Caxton, in his pre-
face to Trevisa’s translation of Higden’s Polychro-
nicon™, and by Bale°®, who gives us the first words of
the preface to it. To proceed.

3. A third reason I have for the ascribing the com-
ment to Wickliff is, that some parts of it seem to suit
exactly with his humour, and manner, and way of
thinking, particularly the gird upon Pcpes and Car-
dinals in the close Ὁ,

Nevertheless, I am far from being positive in this

n “Ranulph Monke of Chestre first Auctour of this Book, and
afterward Englished by one Trevisa Vicarye of Barkley; which
atte request of ove Sr. Thomas Lord Barkley translated this sayd
Book, the Byble, and Bartylmew de proprietatibus rerum out of
Latyn into Englysh.”—Caxton, Pruhemye to bis Edit. 1482.

ο **Tn Anglicum idioma, ad petitionem preedicti sui domini de
Barkeley, transtulit totum Bibliorum opus: Utrumque Dei Testa-
mentum lib, ii. (His pretace beginning) Ego Johannes Trevisa Sacer-
dos.””—Bal., Cent. vii. c. 18, p. 518.

N.B. Bale seems to be mistaken in saying that Trevisa con-
tinued the Polychr. to 1397. For Trevisa ended with 1907. And
Caxton declares that bimself continued the history for 103 years
farther, to 1460. (Jn this Dr. Waterland appears to have been misled
by a mistake of Caxton’s, since the true date of the end of John
Trevisa’s translation is 1387. as Dr. Waterland himself states above.
The last date mentioned in Trevisa’s text is 1557 ; which is perbaps
the cause of Caxton’s mistake. See Babington’s Pretace to Hig-
den, vol. i. p. xii. n.)

Ρ “And algif this Crede accorde unto Prestis, netheles the higher
Prelatis, as Popis and Cardynals, and Bisshops shulden more spe-
cially Kunne this Crede, and teche it to Men undir hem.”—Comm.
on the Athan. Creed.

Compare some words of Wickliff’s Bileve.

“1 suppose, over this, that the Pope be most oblishid to the
kepivg of the Gospel among all Men that liven here; for the
Pope is highest Vicar that Christ has here in Erth.”—Collier, Heel.
Hist., vol. 1. p. 128,

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 61

matter: much may be offered to take off the force of
these reasons, or to counterbalance them. 1. This very
comment is annexed to a manuscript commentary upon
the Psalms and Hymns of the Church, now in Trinity
College Library in Cambridge; which commentary ap-
pears not to be Wickliff’s, though supposed to be his
by Mr. Wharton*. The English version of the Psalms,
going along with that commentary, is not the same
with that of Wickliff’s Bible: I have compared them.
The commentary and version, too, are reasonably judged
to be Hampole’s. I find by a note left in a blank page
at the beginning (signed J. Russel) that there is a copy
of this commentary in the Royal Library (E. 15, 12),
but imperfect; the prologue the very same, and ex-
pressly ascribed to Richard of Hampole, from whence
it may be justly suspected that the comment upon the
Athanasian Creed at the end, appearing in part (for
two leaves are cut out), is Hampole’s as well as the
rest. There is in Bennet Library, in Cambridge, an-
other manuscript copy of the same commentary (marked
1—1. Catal., p. 69) with the comment upon the Creed
entire. The prologue I found to be the same as in the
other, as also the comment on the first Psalm; by
which I judge of the rest’. The comment on the Can-
ticles at the end is likewise the same, only the Canti-
cles are not all placed in the same order. At the

4 ‘*Commentarius in Psalmos, aliosque Sacre Scripture ac Li-
turgie Eeclesiastice Hymnos, MS. in Collegio 8. Trinitatis Cantab.
F, Commentarius in priores 89 Psalmos habetur MS. in Bibliotheca
Lambethana.’”’—Wharton, sec. Wicklef., Append. ad Cav. H. L.,

. 4.

τ Qy. whether there be not one or two more copies of the same
in the Bodleian. See the Bodleian Manuscripts in the General
Catalogue, No. 2438, 3085.

62 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

bottom of the second leaf of the commentary there is
left this note by an unknown hand, Author hujus
Libri, Richardus, Heremita de Hampole. Now if this
commentary really be Hampole’s, of which I can
scarce make any question, it will appear highly pro-
bable that the comment on the Creed is his too.
2. What favours the suspicion is, that here the com-
ment is annexed to other comments in like form with
itself, and not to mere versions, as in the manuscript
of St.John’s library. Nay, further, this comment on
the Creed, as it appears in St. John’s copy, has the
several parts of the Creed in Latin, and in red letter,
prefixed to the respective version and comment; just
as we find in Hampole the several parts of each Psalm
exhibited first in Latin and in red letter, which cir-
cumstance is of some weight. 3. Add to this, that
there are some expressions in the comment on the
Creed very like to those which are familiar with
the author of that commentary on the Psalms, such
as these, ‘‘it is seid comunly, that ther ben, «ce.
Clerkis sein,’ thus and thus; so that from similitude
of style an argument may be drawn in favour of Ham-
pole as well as for Wickliff. These considerations
suffer me not to be positive on the other side. The
comment may be Hampole’s, or it may be Wickliff’s;
which latter opinion I the rather incline to for the
reasons before given, appearing to me something more
forcible than the other. And I may farther observe
that there is in Sidney College, in Cambridge, a very
old copy of Hampole’s commentary, which runs through
the Psalms, and all the ordinary Hymns and Canticles,
but has no comment upon the Athanasian Creed an-

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 63

nexed, though the MS. appears very whole and entire.
This makes me less inclinable to suspect the comment
upon the Creed being Hampole’s; it is more probably
Wickliff’s, as I before said. However it be, the com-
ment may be useful, and if it should prove Hampole’s,
it must be set forty years higher than I have here
placed it. The distance of thirty or forty years makes
no great alteration in any language, so that merely
from the language, especially in so small a tract, we
can draw no consequence to the author, excepting
such peculiarities as may have been rather proper to
this or that man, than to this or that time.

1478. To the comments before mentioned I may add
one more, a Latin one, printed as I suppose, about the
year 1478, though it carries not its date with it. The
author is Peter d’Osma, called in Latin, Petrus de
Osoma‘, or Petrus Oxomensis, or Uxomensis. The
comment makes about seventy pages in quarto, and is
drawn up in the scholastic way, with good judgment
and accuracy, considering the age it was written in.
The book was lent me by Mr. Pownall of Lincoln,
a gentleman of known abilities, and particularly curious
in searching out and preserving any rare and un-
common pieces, printed or manuscript. I do not find
that this comment has been at all taken notice of in
any of our Libliotheques, or in any of the catalogues
of the books printed before 1500. Even those that
give account of the author, yet seem to have known
nothing of the printing of this piece: probably there
were but very few copies, and most of them soon de-

s **Commentaria magistri Petri de Osoma in Symbolum ‘ Qui-

cunque vult,’ &c., finiunt feliciter. Impressaque Parisiis per ma-
gistrum Uauiricum, cognomento Gering.”

64 ANCIENT COMMENTS UPON

stroyed upon the author’s falling under censure in the
year 1479. The author, if I judge right, was the same
Peter Osma who was Professor of Divinity in Sala-
manca, and adorned the chair with great reputation
for many years. He began to be famous about the
year 1444, and at length fell under the censure of
a provincial synod, held under Alphonsus Carrillus,
Archbishop of Toledo, in the year 1479*. He was
condemned for some positions advanced in a book which
he had written upon the subject of Confession. The
positions, nine in number, are such as every Protestant
professes at this day"; being levelled only at the cor-
ruptions of popery in doctrine and discipline; but the
good man was forced to submit and abjure, and to
profess an implicit belief in whatsoever was held for
faith by the then Pope Sixtus IV. Such, in short, is
the account of our author, one of the most learned and
valuable men of his time, by confession even of his
enemies. At what particular time he composed his
comment on the Athanasian Creed, I cannot say; only
that it was between 1444 and 1479. I have placed
it according to the time it was printed as nearly as
I am able to judge of it.

These are all the ancient comments upon the Atha-
nasian Creed that I have hitherto met with, or heard
of, excepting only such as have no certain author, or
none mentioned.

Muratorius informs us of two comments without
names, which are in manuscript, in the Ambrosian

t Nicol. Antonius, Bibliotheca Hispana vetus, lib. x. ο, 16, ὃ 900,
&c., (vol. ii. p. 203.)

u See the Positions and Censure in Carranza.—Summ. Concil.,
p- 463, &e., (880, &c.)

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 65

Library, near 600 years old. One of them bears for
its title, Expositio Fidei Catholice ; the other has no
title. By the age of the manuscripts, (if Muratorius
judges rightly thereof,) one may be assured that they
are distinct and different from any of the comments
below Abelard: and that they are neither of them
the same with Bruno’s or Fortunatus’s, may reasonably
be concluded, because Muratorius was well acquaint-
ed with both, and would easily have discovered it.
Whether either of them may prove to be Abelard’s,
which has for its title, Mxpositio Fide’, and may suit
well with the age of the manuscripts, I know not.
Muratorius, while he makes mention of Bruno and
Hildegardis, whose comments he had seen, says no-
thing of Abelard’s; so that possibly one of his manu-
script comments may prove the same with that. But
if neither of them be the same with Abelard’s, nor
with each other, they must be allowed to pass for two
distinct comments, whose authors are not yet known.

Nothing now remains but to close this chapter with
a Table, as I have the former, representing im one
view a summary of what is contained in it.

A TABLE OF THE ANCIENT COMMENTS.

A.D.; Commentators, Country, Title of the Creed,
570 Venant. Fortunatus. | Poictiers. Fides Catholica.
859. Hinemar, | Rheims. Symbolum Athanasti.
1033 Bruno. | Wurtzburgh. | Fides Catholica Sancti Athanasii
1110 MS. Ambrosian. |Italy. Fides Catholica, [ Episcopi.
1110 MS. alter Ambros, | Italy.
1120 Pet. Abaelardus. | France. Symbolum Athanasii.
1170 5. Hildegardis. | France,
1210\)Simon Tornacensis, | France. Symbolum Athanasii.
1215 Alex. Neckham. England, Fides Catholica.
1280. Alexander Hales. | England, Athanasii Symbolum.
1340| Rich. Hampolus. England, Athanasii Symbolum.
1380 John Wickliff. England, Crede, or Salm, of Attanasie.
1478 Petr. de Osoma. Spain. Athanasti Symbolum,

CHAPTER ΤΥ.

Latin Manuscripts ΟΕ THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

I conFinE myself in this chapter to the Latin manu-
scripts, since the Creed was undoubtedly written origi-
nally in Latin, and therefore the manuscripts in any
other languages will be more properly treated of in
another chapter among the versions. None of the
learned at this day make any question but that the
Creed was originally a Latin composure. This they
pretend to be certain of, and unanimously agree in,
however doubtfully they may speak of other things, or
however they may differ in their opinions about the age
or author. Even those, many of them, who have as-
cribed the Creed to Athanasius, have yet been obliged
by plain and irresistible evidence to acknowledge, with
the legates of Pope Gregory IX., that it was originally
Latin. The style and phraseology of the Creed; its
early reception among the Latins, while unknown to
the Greeks; the antiquity and number of the Latin
manuscripts, and their agreement (for the most part)
with each other, compared with the lateness, scarce-
ness, and disagreement of the Greek copies, all concur
to demonstrate that this Creed was originally a Latin
composure rather than a Greek one: and as to any
other language besides these two, none is pretended.

I proceed, then, to recount the Latin manuscripts as
high as we can find any extant, or as have been known

ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS, &c. 67

to have been extant; and as low as may be necessary,
or useful to our main design.

A.D. 600. The oldest we have heard of is one mentioned
by Bishop Usher, which he had seen in the Cotton
Library, and which he judged to come up to the age of
Gregory the Great*. This manuscript has often been
appealed to since Usher’s time, and upon the credit of
Usher, by the learned on this subject: as particularly
by Comber, L’Estrange, Tentzelius, Tillemont, Le
Quien, Muratorius, Natalis Alexander, and perhaps
several more. Montfaucon takes notice of Usher’s
manuscript ; but observes that Usher himself allowed
the character to be much later than the time of Gre-
gory ἢ: which would have been a strange inconsistency
in Usher, who forms his argument for the antiquity of
the manuscript from the character itself, and from the
ancient kind of picture. But Montfaucon is plainly
mistaken, confounding what Usher had said of another
manuscript, in Bennet Library at Cambridge 5, with

a “*Tatino-gallicum illud Psalterium in Bibliotheca Cottoniana
vidimus: sicut et alia Latina duo, longe majoris antiquitatis ; in
quibus, preeter Hymnum hune (sc. Te Deum) sine ullo authoris no-
mine, Hymni ad Matutinas, titulo inscriptum, et Athanasianum
habebatur Symbolum, et Apostolicum totidem omnino quot ho-
diernum nostrum continens capitula. In priore, quod Gregorii I.
tempore non fuisse recentius, tum ex antiquo picture genere col-
ligitur, tum ex literarum forma grandiuscula, Athanasianum qui-
dem, Fidei Catholice, .... alterum vero Symboli Apostolorum
prefert titulum. In posteriore, quod Regis A‘thelstani aliquando
fuit, Apostolicum, vice versa, Symbolum simpliciter, alterum au-
tem Fides Sancti Athanasii Alexandrini nuncupatur.”— Usher, de
Symb. Pref., p. 4 (2, 3).

> “Codicum omuium qui hactenus visi memoratique sunt, anti-
quissimus ille est qui ab Usserio laudatur, evo Gregorii Magni
conscriptus ; si tamen ea vere sit ejus MS. etas: nam addit
Usserius, scripturam evo Gregorii longe esse posteriorem.” —
Montf., Diatr., p. 721.

¢ “In Psalterio Greco Pape Gregorii, ut prefert titulus (scrip-
tura enim xvyo Gregorii longe est posterior) Psalteriv videlicet

68 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

what he had said of the Cotton manuscript at West-
minster. The two manuscripts are very distinct, and
different as possible; nor has the Bennet manuscript
any Athanasian Creed in it: only its being called
Gregory’s Psalter occasioned, I suppose, the mistake
of making it the same with the other. Tentzelius ἡ
seems first to have confounded them together; and pro-
bably Montfaucon followed him implicitly, not having
Usher at hand to consult, which would immediately
have discovered the fallacy. Were there no other ob-
jection against Usher’s manuscript beside what hath
been mentioned, all would be well; but it is of greater
weight to observe, that there is not at this day in the
Cotton Library any such manuscript copy of the Atha-
nasian Creed, nor indeed any Latin Psalter that can
come up to the age of Gregory, or near it. There is
an ancient Psalter (marked Vespasian A.) written in
capitals and illuminated, and which might perhaps, by
the character, be as old as the time of Gregory the
Great, were it not reasonable to think, from a charter
of King Ethelbald, written in the same hand and at
the same time, and formerly belonging to it*, that it
Greco et Romano, Latinis utroque literis descripto, quod in Bene-
dictini, apud Cantabrigienses, Collegii Bibliotheca est reconditum.”
—Usher, de Symb., p. 9. This MS. is marked N.15 in the Cata-
longue of MSS. of C. C. C., Cambridge, p. 44.

4 Tentzel., Judic. Hrudit., p. 49; Hxercit. Select., vol. i. p. 29.

e “Constat vero ex Historia et Synopsi bibl. Cottoniane, quam
in ingens Reip. literarie beneficium edidit amplificandis bonis
literis Latus doctissimus Thomas Smithus noster, et indiculo Psal-
terii Latini in majusculis scripti cum versione Saxonica inter-
lineari, quod notatur Vespasian. A. I, Chartam hane (Aithelbaldi
R. Australium Saxonum) ex isto MS. exscissam esse. Quod etiam
illius qauum mensura que cum foliis illius MS. quadrat, tum etiam
manus in utroque prorsus eadem, tum denique Locus MSS., unde

scissa est, inter folia x. et xi., codicem vertentibus ostendit.’’—
Hickes, Dissert. Epist., p. 67, (at the end of vol. ii. of his Thesaurus.)

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 69

cannot be set higher than the date of that charter,
A.D. 7386. But I should here observe, that that charter
is not in the larger capitals, as the Psalter itself is, but
in the smaller capi'als, the same hand that the several
pieces in that manuscript, previous to the Psalter, are
written in; and how far this may affect our present
argument I cannot say. Possibly the Psalter itself,
being in a different hand, may be older than those
previous pieces, as it is certainly much older than
the additional pieces at the end, which are not in
capitals, great or small.

This Psalter has the Ze Deum annexed to it, with
the title of Zymnus ad Matutinum, as Usher’s had ; and
also the Athanasian Creed, with the title of des
Catholica ; but both in a very different and much later
hand than that of the Psalter itself, later by several
centuries, as the very learned Mr. Wanley' judges,
who sets the age of the Psalter about 1000 years, but
of the Athanasian Creed, &c., at the time of the Nor-
man Conquest. A suspicion, however, may from hence
arise, that this very Psalter, with what belongs to it,
might be the Psalter, &e., which Usher spake of, espe-
cially since there is none other in the Cotton Library
at all like it. But, on the contrary, it is to be con-
sidered, that this manuscript has no Apostolical Creed
at all in it, which Usher affirms his to have had; nor
has it the Zymnus Matutinus, beginning with Gloria in
excelsis Deo, which Usher’s also had $; nor is the Creed

f Wanley, Catal. MSS. Septentr., p. 222.

s ‘Ad finem veterum Psalteriorum Latinorum, cum A postolico
et Athanasiano Symbolo, etiam Hymnus iste (sc. Gloria, &c.) ha-
betur aajectus. In antiquissimo Cottoniano ἀνεπίγραφος est: in

70 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

in capitals, as one would imagine Usher’s to have been
by what he says of it; neither is it at all probable,
that if Usher had intended the Psalter now extant in
the Cotton, he should give no hint of the Saxon version
going along with it, especially considering that it might
be made an objection to its antiquity ; nor do 1 think
that so inquisitive a man as Usher could either have
been ignorant of the age of Ethelbald, or of his charter
having been once a part of that manuscript. In his
Historia Dogmatica®, he takes notice of this very
Psalter (now marked Vespasian A.), and of the Saxon
version in it, and hkewise of its being in the same
hand with Ethelbald’s charter; and there he sets the
age of it no higher than the year 736 (that is, above
130 years later than Gregory I.), without the least hint
that he had ever mistaken the age of it before, or had
thought otherwise of it than he did at the time of his
writing this later treatise. These considerations per-
suade me that Bishop Usher had seen some other ma-
nuscript, which has since that time, like many more’,
been lost or stolen from the Cotton Library. He that
was so accurate in every tittle of what he says of
King Athelstan’s Psalter (mentioned at the same time),
could never have been so negligent, or rather plainly
careless, in respect of the other. I conclude, therefore,
that there really was such a Psalter as Usher describes,
with the Athanasian Creed in it, such as he judged to

AXthelstaniano proximo, Hymnus in die Dominico ad Matutinas,
inscribitur.”—Usher, de Symbol., p. 42 (33).

h “In Bibliotheca D. Roberti Cotton extat Psalterium Romanum
vetustissimum, cum versione interlineari Saxonica ; character item
cum charta Aithilbaldi Anglorum Regis, anno 736 data.’’—Usher,
Hist. Dogmat., p. 104.

iT. Smith, Pref. ad Catalog. MSS. Bibl. Cotton.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 71

be of the age of Gregory I., from more marks than one;
and how good a judge he was in those matters is well
known to as many as know anything of that great man.
But how far his judgment ought to sway, now the
manuscript itself is lost, I must leave with the reader.

660. Next to this of Bishop Usher we may place the
famous manuscript of Treves, from which the Colbert
manuscript (to be mentioned hereafter in its place) was
copied. Mr. Antelmi* sets it as high as the year 460,
upon a presumption that the Colbert manuscript is as
old as the year 600, and that 150 years may reasonably
be allowed between the Colbertine copy and that from
which it was copied. Tillemont, supposing or admit-
ting the Colbertine to be near the age that Antelmi
mentions, yet thinks fifty years difference might be suf-
ficient, and that therefore the age of the Treves manu-
script might be fixed at 550, or thereabout!. But,
since the Colbert manuscript cannot reasonably be set
much higher than 760, as we shall see in its proper
place, I shall not pretend to set the Treves manuscript
above 660, and that only under the favourable allow-
ance of a probable conjecture. The authority of this
manuscript of Treves stands upon the credit of a pas-
sage prefixed to the Colbertine copy ™, which declares
that the latter was copied from a manuscript found at
Treves. It was not a copy of the entire Creed, but
began at the Second Part, which relates to the Incar-
nation; for, after the words ‘‘ believe rightly the In-

k Antelm., de Symb. Athan., p. 26.

1 Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. viii. p. 283 (670).

m ἐς Η 9 inveni Treviris in uno libro scriptum, sic incipiente,

Domini nostri Jesu Christi et reliqua. Domini nostri Jesu Christi
fideliter credat.’—Apud Montf., Diatrib., p. 728.

72 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

carnation of our Lord Jesus Christ”’ (being only part of
the foregoing sentence) follows; ‘‘ for the right faith is,
that we believe,’’ and so on to the end of the Creed.
This remaining part of the Creed is very different from
the common copies, and seems to have been so con-
trived with design, as I shall have occasion to observe
mere at large in the sequel. And it is to me an argument
that the manuscript was written while the Eutychian
controversy was at the height, about the end of the fifth
century, or beginning of the sixth, though I here set
it a great deal lower, because this is not the place to
explain that matter fully, nor would I too far indulge
a bare conjecture. It is sufficient to suppose it written
in the seventh century, as it was undoubtedly copied
from as early if not earlier than the eighth.

700. After the manuscript of Treves may justly fol-
low the Ambrosian manuscript, which is in the Am-
brosian Library at Milan, a copy of which has been
published by Muratorius, in his second tome of Anec-
dota. It was brought thither from the famous monas-
tery of Bobbio, (of High-Lombardy, in the Milanese, )
founded by Columbanus, a.p. 613. The character of
the manuscript is Langobardick, and it is Judged by
Muratorius (who has more particularly examined it) to
be above 1000 years old". By his account then, who

n “Tn alio etiam Vetustissimo Ambrosiane Bibliothece Codice
ante mille et plures annos scripto, Symbolum idem sum nactus.”—
Murator., vol. i. p. 16.

** Caterum opusculum Hoe (Bachiarii Fides) mihi depromptum
est ex antiquissimo Ambrosiane Bibliothece Codice, quem ante
annos minimum mille conscriptum, characterum forma non dubi-
tanter testatur. Fuit autem olim celebris Monasterii Bobiensis,
et ex illo in Ambrosianam translatus a magno Card. Federico
Borromeo,” &c.—Murator., vol. ii, pp. 8, 224.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 73

wrote in the year 1698, we ought to set the age of this
manuscript higher than 698. Yet, because Montfau-
con, who in his travels through Italy had also seen it,
puts it no higher than the eighth century °, we shall
be content to place it between the seventh and eighth,
or in the year 700, to make it a round number. There
are in this manuscript some readings different from the
common copies, which shall be carefully noted here-
after. It is without any title.

703. We may next set down King Athelstan’s
Psalter, of which Bishop Usher had taken notice,
making it next in age to the other most ancient one of
the age of Gregory I. He and Dr. Grabe both fix the
date of it to the year 703, from the Rule of the Calen-
dar found in it?. Dr. Smith, in his Catalogue of the
Cotton Manuscripts, inclines to think that the manu-
script is later than that time, but taken from one that
was really as early as the year 7038, the later copyist
transcribing (as sometimes has been) the book and the
Rule word for word, as he found them?. Allowing

ο “ Codex VIII. Seculi, charactere Langobardico, in quo Gen-
nadii de Keclesiasticis Dogmatibus, Bachiarii Fides, Symbolum
Athanasii, omnia eadem manu.”—Montfaue., Diar. Jtal., p. 18.

» “ Psalterium illud anno ere nostre Christiane 703, longe ante
/Echelstani regnantis tempora, ex rezulis Kalendario in libri initio
subjunctis seriptum tuisse deprehendi.’”’—Usher, de Symb., p. 8 (6).

“Quod Regis Althelstani fuisse dicitur, atque anno 703 scrip-
tum est.”—Grabe, Prolegom. in Vetus Test., vol. iv. ο. 3, § 7.

4 “ Hic vero veneranuee antiquitatis liber fere ante mille annos
deseriptus ; ut quibusdam ex Calendario, quod annum Cnristi 705,
certo designat, illic prefixo videtur. Sed cum librarios eandem
temporis adnotationem, quee ad vetustissimos codices proprie et
peculiariter spectat, suis exemplaribus apposuisse sepissime obser-
vaverim.... an sit ille ipse codex autographus qui tantam pre
se ferat wtatem, vel annon potius seculo, aut circiter, ante tem-
pora Aithelstani descriptus, vix pro certo praestarem ; ad poste-
riorem sententiam faventiori animo inclinaturus.’”—Smith, bid/.

74 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

this to have been the case here (though it be only con-
jecture), it may still be true that there was a manuscript
of the age of 703 with this Creed in it, from whence
the later one, now extant, was copied, which serves our
purpose as well, and the rest is not material. But it
should not be concealed that the Psalter (in this manu-
script) is in small Italian, and the above-mentioned Rule
in a small Saxon hand, which may, in some measure,
weaken the argument drawn from the age of one to the
age of the other; so that at length our evidence from
this manuscript will be short of certainty, and will rise
no higher than a fair probable presumption. I have
nothing farther to observe, but that the Psalter wherein
this Creed is, is the Gallican Psalter, not the Roman,
and the title is, Wides Sancti Athanasii Alexandrini,
‘‘The Faith of St. Athanasius of Alexandria.”

760. We may now take in the Colbertine copy, of
which I have before spoken, referring the date of it to
the year 760, or thereabout. Montfaucon sets it above
the age of Charles the Great’, allowing it to have been
written about the time of Pepin, who began to reign
in the year 752; so that I cannot be much out of time
in placing it as I have done. It is written in Saxon

Cotton. Histor., p. 44. (This passage could not be found in Dr.
Smith’s Preiace. )

τ “ Nongentos superat annos Colbertinus codex 784, Saxonicis
descriptus literis, et mea quidem sententia, ante xtatem Caroli
Magni evitus .... Sunt qui codicem illum 1100 annorum esse
adfirmaruut: verum periti quique xvo circiter Pipini exaratum
arbitrantur.””—Montf., Diatr., p. 721.

“ΝΟ. tamen Codicis Colbertini auctoritate nititur heec opinio,
quem arbitratur Anthelmius 1100 annorum. Etenim (quod pace
viri eruditissimi, et amicissimi dicatur) multo minoris wtatis co 1ex
esse comprobatur ; nemo enim peritus cui librum exhibuerim,
octavo cum seculo antiquiorem estimavit.”—Ib., p. 724.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED, 75

character, and is imperfect, wanting the first part,
above one-half of the Creed, just as the manuscript of
Treves, from which it was copied.

760. The manuscript of St. Germans at Paris is entire,
and of the same age with the former*. It is marked
No, 257, and written in a Saxon letter as well as the
other. A specimen of the hand, with the three first
paragraphs of the Creed, may be seen in Mabillon'.
The title, Fides Sancti Athanasii Episcopi Alexandria.
It differs in some places from the common copies (as
shall be noted hereafter), though not near so much as
the Colbert manuscript before mentioned,

772. Next to these is the famous manuscript of Charles
the Great, at the end of a Gallican Psalter, written in
letters of gold, and presented by Charlemagne, while
only king of France, to Pope Adrian I., at his first
entrance upon the Pontificate, in the year 772. Lam-
becius, in his catalogue of the Emperor’s Library at
Vienna, where this manuscript is, gives a large account
of it". The title is, Lides Sancti Athanasii Episcopi
Alexandrini.

800. There is another manuscript in the Royal
Library at Paris, marked 4908, which Montfaucon
judges to be near 900 years old’. He wrote in the

s ‘Paris saltem antiquitatis est Sangermanensis noster, num. 257.
Saxonicis pariter literis exaratus, qui titulum habet, ‘ Fides Sancti
Athanasii Episcopi Alexandrie.’”—Ib., p. 721.

t Mabill., de re Diplom., lib. v. p. 351.

ἃ Lambecius, Catal. Biblioth. Vindobonens., lib. ii. c.5, pp. 261, 296,
ἅς. ‘* Carolus Magnus proprio carmine suo testatur se illum codi-
cem summo Pontifici Hadriano I. dono misisse ; et quidem, ut ego
arbitror, illo ipso anno 772, cujus die decimo Februarii jam me-
moratus Hadrianus in summum Pontificem electus est.”

v ἐς Regius Codex, num. 4908, annorum pene nongentorum, nul-

10 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

year 1698. So if we place it in the year 800, we
shall want a little of 900 years from that time. He
supposes it of very near the same age with the Vienna
manuscript. It bears no title, nor any name or note
of the author. It contains no more than the first part
of the Creed, as far as the words et tamen non tres
eterni, sed unus ; the rest is torn off and lost.
850. I may here place a manuscript of Bennet Col-
lege Library in Cambridge, whose age I cannot cer-
tainly fix to a year, but by all circumstances it cannot
well be supposed later than this time. It is at the end
of a Psalter, which, by comparing, I find to be a Gal-
lican Psalter. Bishop Parker left a remark in it about
its being in the possession first of one of the Arch-
bishops of Canterbury, and at length conveyed down
to the hands of Becket*, who was Archbishop of Can-
terbury in the year 1162. The great antiquity of
the manuscript appears from the martyrs, confessors,
and virgins addressed to in it, all of the early times’.
There are some few variations in this copy, such as
are also found in the most ancient manuscripts of this
Creed, particularly the word ef, frequently inserted
before Spiritus Sanctus, which has been since erased

lum habet titulum, nullumque auctoris nomen. /qualis ipsi est,
qui memoratur a Lambecio,” &c.—Montf., Diatr., p. 721.

x “Hoe Psalterium [N. X.] laminis argenteis deauratum, et
gemmis ornatum, quondam fuit N. Cantuar. Archiep. tandem
venit in manus Thome Becket quondam Cant. Archiep. Quod tes-
tatum est in veteri scripto.’’—Matth. Cant., Catal. MSS. C.C.C., C.

. 48.

y “Τὴ Litaniis, Orate pro nobis, Sancte Contestor, Sancte He-
rasme, Sancte Oswolde, &c. Martyres. Sancte Cuthberte, Sancte
Germane, Sancte Placide, Sancte Columbane, Sancte Caurentine,
&c. Confessores. Sancta Brigida, Sancta Eugenia, Sancta Eulalia,
Sancta Petronella, &c., Virgiues. Et non sunt hisce recentiores.”
—Catal. MSS. Ὁ. C.C., C., p. 43.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. Vi

by some officious hand. The title is observable, Δ 68
Sancti Anasthasii Episcopi ; Anasthasii for Athanasii,
by a transposition of syllables.

860. Montfaucon informs us of a manuscript in the
Colbert Library, No. 13839, which once belonged to
Charles the Bald’, who died in the year 877; began
to reign 840. It cannot therefore be much amiss to
fix upon 860 for the date of it. The title it bears
is, Fides Athanasit.

883. There is a second manuscript copy of the
Athanasian Creed in the library of Bennet (or Corpus
Christi) College, marked N.O. V. It is at the end of
a Gallican Psalter, in the same hand, and carrying its
certain date with it. It was written in France, by
order of Count Amadeus, or Achadeus*, and in the
year 883, as appears from the Litany». The title is,
Ides Catholica.

930. Mr. Wanley gives us an account of a Roman
Psalter in the Royal Library (formerly of St. James’s),
with an interlinear Saxon version to it, written about
the time of King Athelstan®. Among the Canticles at
the end there is also this Creed, under the title of
HHymnus Athanasti de Fide Trinitatis, quem tu concele-
brans discutienter intellige. This is in red ink. The

z **Colbertinus No. 1339, qui fuit Karoli Calvi imperatoris, in-
seribitur ; Fides Athanasii.”—Monttauc., Diatrib., p. 721.

a ‘* Ad finem Psalterii, Achadeus, misericordia Dei comes hune
Psalterium scribere jussit.”—Catal. MSS., C.C.C., C., p. 46.

Ὁ « Oratur, ut Marinum Apostolicum in Sancta religioue conser-
vare digneris, ut Karlomannum Regem perpetua prosperitate con-
servare digneris: ut Keyinam conservare digneris: ut Fulconem
Episcopum cum omni grege sibi commisso in tuo apto servitio con-
servare digneris.’”"—Catal. MSS. C.C.C., C., p. 47.

¢ Wanley, Cutul. MSS. Septentr., p. 182. Wanley, however,
only gives the title Hymnus Athanasii.

78 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

title seems to have been then customary in England, as
may be probably argued from a Saxon version (to be
hereafter mentioned) of the same age, or very near, and
bearing the same title 4.

957. In the Archbishop’s Library at Lambeth there
is a Gallican Psalter, written, according to Mr. Wanley*,
in the time of King Edgar, or a little before. At the
end there is the Athanasian Creed in the same ancient
hand, with an interlinear Saxon version. The title,
Fides Catholica Sancti Athanasti Episcopt.

970. There is another manuscript copy of this Creed,
much of the same age with the former, in my Lord
Oxford’s elegant library, richly furnished with all
kinds of curious and valuable manuscripts. This Creed
is at the end of a Gallican Psalter, and has an inter-
linear Saxon version to it. Mr. Wanley, who was
so kind as to acquaint me with it, and to favour me
with a sight of it, refers it to the time of King Ed-
gar, who began his reign in 959, and died in 975.
The title is, Hides Catholica Athanasti Alexandrini
Episcopt.

1081. In the Cotton Library there is a Gallican
Psalter, with Saxon interlined (marked Vitellius, E.18),
which Mr. Wanley refers to the year 1091, The
Athanasian Creed, at the end as usual among the other
Canticles, bears the title of Evdes Catholica Athanasit
Episcopt Alexandrini.

4 Hymnus Athanasii de Fide Trinitatis. Wotton, Conspectus
Brevis operis Hickesiani, p. 77.

e Wanley, Catal., p. 269. “ Eadgari Regis Anglosaxonum tem-
poribus, aut paulo ante, ut videtur, exaratus.”

Wharton, Auctar. Hist. Dogm., p. 374, ‘‘ Alfredo parum recentior

videtur.”

f Wanley, Catal., p. 222, 224. Smith, Catal. Cotton., p. 101.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 79

1050. In the Norfolk Library, now belonging to the
Royal Society at London, there is also a Gallican
Psalter, whose age is fixed by Mr. Wanleys to the
time of Edward the Confessor. The Creed is in it, and
has an interlinear Saxon version running along with it.
The title, Fides Catholica Athanasii Alex.

1064. In Bennet College Library is a manuscript
copy of this Creed without any title. The Psalter,
wherein it is, is called Portiforium Oswaldi, and is
marked K.10. An account of the book may be seen
in Mr. Wanley*, and in the Catalogue, p. 30.

1066. I may here place the Cotton Manuscript before
mentioned, bound up with the ancient Roman Psalter,
marked Vespasian A., though of a very different and
much later hand. The Creed has an interlinear Saxon
version, as usual, and its title is Mvdes Catholica. Mr.
Wanley judges it to be as old as the coming in of the
Normans'.

1066. Of the same age * is the Roman Psalter in our
Public Library at Cambridge, with the Latin text in
black letter, a Saxon version in red, and the titles
in green. The Creed is interlined with Saxon, as
well as the Psalter, but has no title; for from this
time, I conceive, the title began to be left out in some
copies for brevity sake, or because it was thought
superfluous.

It will be needless to take notice of any manuscripts
below this time, excepting only such as contain some-
thing particular.

& Wanley, Catal., p. 291. h Tbid., p. 110.
i |bid., p. 222. Smith, Bibl. Cotton. Histor., p. 35.
k Wanley, Catal., p. 152.

80 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

1087. Quesnel’, and after him Pagi™, speaks of
a manuscript copy of this Creed in a Breviary and
Psalter for the use of the monks of Mount Cassin,
judged to be about 600 years old. This is the same
Breviary that Quesnel has made observations upon in
another work"; and there he fixes the age a little
below 1086—paulo post annum 1086. ‘he title of the
Creed is, Hides Catholica edita ab Athanasio Alexan-
drine sedis Episcopo. ‘There is the like title to the
Creed in the triple Psalter of St. John’s College, Cam-
bridge, about the same age, or older, (marked B. 18,)
Incipit Fides Catholica edita ab Athanasio Archiepiscopo
Alexandrine civitatis. And there is such another title
in a Psalter of the Norfolk Library, (No. 155,) Fides
Catholica edita a Sancto Athanasio Hpo.; but the hand
is modern.

1120. In my Lord Oxford’s Library I had a sight of
a manuscript written in Germany about 600 years ago,
for the use of the Church of Augsburg, which bears for
its title, Fides Anastasit Episcopt.

1150. In the Norfolk Library is a Psalter (marked
No. 230) with an interlinear version Normanno-Gal-
lican; the Psalter is Gallican, and the title of the
Creed at the end, Fides Catholica.

1240. Usher takes notice of a copy of this Creed
then in the Royal Library at St. James's, (formerly be-
longing to Louis IX.) ; the title, Pvdes Catholica.

1300. Montfaucon informs us of a Latin and a French
copy of this Creed found in a manuscript about 400

1 Quesnel, Dissert. xiv. ad Leon. Oper., p. 732.

m Pagi, Critic. in Baron. Ann. 340, § 8, p. 121, (vol. 1, p. 441.)
" Quesnel, Observat. ad Breviarium, p. 827.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 81

years old, placed in opposite columns. What is re-
markable is, that the Latin has for its title Canticum
Bonifacti, and the French over against the other, Ce
chant fust St. Anaistaise qui Apostoilles de Rome®.

1400. In the Bodleian at Oxford there is a manu-
script copy of this Creed (No. 1205), which has for its
title, Anastasit Expositio Symboli Apostolorum. It is
about 300 years old, and belonged once to the Carthu-
sian monks at Mentz. The Carthusians are particu-
larly noted for their more than common veneration for
this Creed, reciting it every day at the Prime, as
Cardinal Bona testifies both of them and the Ambro-
sians?, which I remark by the way. I observe that
the German copies of this Creed, for five or six hun-
dred years upwards, have most commonly Anastasius
instead of Athanasius. I make no question but that
this first arose from a mistake of the copyists, and not
out of any design. One may perceive that Anastasius
is sometimes written where Athanasius of Alexandria
must have been intended. I suppose, at first, some
copies had accidentally Anasthasius for Athanasius (as
one in Bennet College Library mentioned above), by
a transposition of letters or syllables, as easily happens
in writing or speaking: thus Phrunutus for Phurnutus,
Marivadus for Varimadus, and the like. Now when
the copyists had thus introduced Anasthasius (Anas-tha
for Atha-nas), those that came after left out the ὦ to
make it Anastasius, that being a common name, which
the other was not. This I thought proper to hint,
that it may appear how little reason there is for ascrib-

ο Montfaucon, Diatrib., pp. 722, 727

» Bona, de Divin. Psalmod., c. 18, §§ 5, 10, pp. 897, 900.

G

82 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

ing this Creed to Anastasius, whether of Rome, or of
Antioch, or any other.

I have now run through the manuscripts of greatest
note or use, either for antiquity or for anything particu-
lar, to give light to our further enquiries. Two only
I have omitted, which have been thought considerable ;
not so much in themselves, as upon account of the other
tracts they were found to be joined with. The one is
the manuscript found in the library of Thuanus ( Codes
Thuaneus), annexed to some tracts which were once
supposed to belong to Vigilius Tapsensis, though now
certainly known to be none of his. Quesnel was much
pleased with the discovery of this manuscript, as fa-
vouring his hypothesis about Vigilius Tapsensis 4. And
Antelmius has taken some pains in confuting him,
shewing that the supposed works of Vigilius are none
of his*, and that if they were, yet no certain argument
could be drawn from thence to make Vigilius author of
the Creed, since it is a common thing for tracts of
several authors, especially if they relate to the same
subject, to be tacked to each other.

The second manuscript is one that was found an-
nexed to the ‘‘ Fragments of Hilary of Poictiers®*;”

a ἐς Absoluta Dissertationum nostrarum editione, inveni Codicem
Touaneum, in quo Dialogus Vigilii Tapsensis adversus Arianos,
Sabellianos, et Photinianos legitur, sub hoc titulo: ‘ Incipit Alter
catio Athanasii cum Heresibus.’ Post hune Tractatum habetur
Symbolum Nicenum, et Formula Fidei Ariminensis Concilii, quam
proxime sequitur Symbolum Athanasianum cum hac Epigraphe:
‘ Fides dicta a Sancto Athanasio Episcopo.’ Porro, conjecture nostre
de autore hujus Symboli, Vigilio, non parum suffragatur, quod in
antiquissimo codice illigatum reperiatur Opusculo cui nomen Atha-
nasii pariter pretixum legitur, sed quod Vigilii Tapsensis esse ins
dubitatum habetur,” &c.—Quesnel, in Addend., p. 913.

r Montfauc., Athan. Op., vol. 11. pp. 603, 724.

s “Tnvenitur id similiter in Fragmentis Hilarii historicis in Cod.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 83

which circumstance was thought a reason for ascribing
this Creed to Hilary. Vossius first, and after him
many others, throw it off as a very slight argument,
since the manuscript pretended is very modern; nor is
the Creed ascribed to Hilary in that manuscript, but
only bound up with his ‘‘ Fragments,” as any other
work might be, however little akin to them. Mont-
faucon takes notice of this matter in few wordst;
Tentzelius more at large“. It is sufficient for me just
to have hinted it.

Having now given as particular account as was need-
ful of the more ancient Latin manuscripts of this Creed,
I may just observe, that as to modern ones they are in-
numerable, there being scarce any manuscript Latin
Psalter of modern date but what has the Creed in it,
and generally without a title. I may next subjoin
a table of the manuscripts here recited, representing in
one view the age, the title, the country where written,
and the kind of Psalter wherein found: all which cir-
cumstances will be of use to us in our following en-
quiries. Particularly, as to the Psalters, it will be of
moment to observe whether they be Roman or Gal-
lican, because from thence we may be able to discover
in what places or countries this Creed was first re-

veteri Part. 2, sub finem.”—Felckman, Var. Lect. Oper. Athan.,
p. 89.

t “Hilario nonnulli adsecriptum voluerunt, quia nimirum in
codice quodam exstat post Hilarii Fragmenta. Quasi vero id non
vulgo et in plerisque codicibus observetur, ut multa diversorum
opera consequenter in manuscriptis describentur. Cum autem in
ejusmodi codice post Hilariana opera, nullo premisso auctoris
nomine compareat; hinc, uti jam supra diximus, inferendum,
tum exaratum fuisse cum pro Athanasiano nondum vyulgo habe-
retur.”’—Montfaue., Diatrib., p. 723.

« Tentzel., Judic. Erud., pp. 2, ὃ, &c.

84 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

ceived, according to their use of this or that Psalter.
But because, perhaps, some readers may be at a loss to
know what we mean by those different names of Roman
and Gallican Psalters, it may not be improper here to
throw in a few previous instructions relating to the
different kinds of Latin Psalters, and the names they
have gone under.

There are four kinds or sorts of Latin Psalters,
which have passed under the names of Italic, Roman,
Gallican, and Hebraic. One of them was before Jerome’s
time; the three last are all Jerome’s, as he had a hand,
more or less, in every one of them. I shall treat of
them distinctly in their order as follows :—

I. The Italic Latin Psalter is of the old translation,
or version, such as it was before Jerome’s time. I shall
not enter into the dispute whether it were one version,
or many. The common opinion is, that there were
several Latin versions before Jerome’, but one more
eminent than the rest, called Italic*, as being received
into common use in Italy’. However that be, it is
become customary with such as treat of this subject to
speak of all that was extant before Jerome as of one
version, under the name of Vetus Vulgata, or Versio

v “Qui enim Scripturas ex Hebreea Lingua in Linguam Grecam
verterunt numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo:
ut enim cuique primis Fidei temporibus in manus venit Codex
Grecus et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque lingue habere
videbatur, ausus est interpretari.”—August., de Doctr. Christian.,
lib. ii. c. 11, vol. iii. p. 25.

x “Tn ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala ceteris preferatur :
nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententie.’’—August.,
ID ΟΣ ΓΟ pale

y ‘ Ecclesia Latina a principio, vel ferme a principio, usa est ver-
sione Latina Testamenti Vet. ex Greca τῶν 6 translatione facta,
que Itala vulgo dicebatur, quoniam in Italia prius usitata in alias

inde Latinorum Ecclesias recipiebatur.’’—Hodius, de Biblior. Text.
Origin., lib. iii. pars 2, ὁ. 1, p. 342.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 85

Italica, There are entire Psalters of this old version,
printed and manuscript”, though now nowhere in use
in Divine offices, except such parcels of it as, having
been anciently taken into the Roman missals, or other
old Liturgies, remain there still, the people being ac-
customed to them, and there being no great necessity
for changing them; but all the entire Psalters in use
are of another kind. Martianay, in his edition of
Jerome’s works, once intended to give us an entire and
correct Psalter (with some other of the sacred books) of
the old Italic version ; but the various lections were so
many and so different, that the work appeared too
laborious and difficult, for which reason he then laid it
aside*. This version, or versions, is what all the
Latins used before Jerome, and many also after him, the
Africans especially, down to the sixth century at least,
or beginning of the seventh.

2. The Roman Psalter is not very different from the
old Italic. It is nothing else but that old version,
cursorily and in part corrected by Jerome in the time
of Pope Damasus, a.p. 383. It has had the name of
Roman, because the use of it began the soonest and
continued the longest in the Roman offices. It ob-
tained in Gaul near as soon as at Rome, but was
laid aside in the sixth century, when Gregory of

z Le Long, Bibl. Sacr., vol. i. p. 248.

a Appendicem Sacrorum aliquot voluminum, juxta Veterem
Vulgatam usu receptam ante Hieronymum, hoc loco edendam sta-
tueramus: sed quum operi manus jamjam accederet, tantam inter
MSS. Codices hujus versionis Latinz deprehendimus dissonantiam,
ut impossibile esset vel solas variantes horum codicum lectiones
adnotasse nisi maximo temporis intervallo. Quare ne in sequentem
annum differretur editio hujus Divine Bibliothecee, Appendicem

predictam latiori operi, ac majori otio reservavimus.”—Martian.,
Not. ad Hieronym., vol. i. p. 1419.

86 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

Tours» introduced the other Psalter, since called Gal-
lican. The Roman Psalter, however, still obtained at
Rome till the time of Pope Pius Y.°, and it is still
used in the Vatican church, and some few churches
besides.

3. The Gallican Psalter is Jerome’s more correct
Latin translation made from Origen’s Hexaplar4, or
most correct edition of the Greek Septuagint, filled up,
where the Greek was supposed faulty, from the He-
brew, distinguished with obelisks and asterisks, denot-
ing the common Greek version in those places to be
either redundant or deficient. Many of the old manu-
scriptse still retain those marks; but more have left
them out, I suppose, to save trouble. This more
correct Psalter was drawn up by Jerome in the year
389, and obtained first in Gaul about the year 580, or,
however, not later than 595; from which circumstance
it came to have the name of Gallican, in contradistine-
tion to the Roman. From Gaul, or France, it passed
over into England before the year 597, and into Ger-

Ὁ ἐς Psalmos autem cum secundum LXX. interpretes Romani ad-
hue habeant ; Galli et Germanorum aliqui secundum emendatio-
nem quam Hieronymus Pater de LXX. Editione composuit, Psal-
terium cantant: Quam Gregorius, Turonensis Episcopus, a patribus
Romanis mutuatam, in Galliarum dicitur Ecclesias transtulisse.”—
Walafrid. Strab. de Reb. Hecles., α. 25, p. 196 (p. 690).

e¢ Bona, de Rebus Liturg., lib. ii. ec. 3, p. 506. Hodius, lib. iii.
pars 2, c. 4, p. 383. Mabill., de Curs. Gallic., p. 398.

4 Hieron., Hpist. ad Sunn. et Frelet., in vol. ii. p. 627.

e The Cotton Mannseript of 703, and the Bennet of 883, Lam-
beth of 957, Lord Oxford’s of 970, and Bruno’s own manuscript of
1033, besides many more in France, England, and other coun-
tries. ‘‘ Quanta porro fuerit diligentia nostratium in describendo
hocce Psalterio, cum asteriscis et obelis, non aliunde testatum
volumus quam ex infinita copia Codicum MSS. qui cum talibus dis-
tinctionibus supersunt usque hodie in Gallicanis Bibliothecis.”—
Martian., Hieronym. Op., vol. i. Pvolegom. ii. 6. 5.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED, 87

many, and Spain, and other countries. The popes of
Rome, though they themselves used the other Psalter,
yet patiently connived at the use of this in the Western
Churches and even in Italy, and sometimes privately
authorized the use of it in churches and monasteries‘,
till at length it was publicly authorized in the Council
of Trent, and introduced a while after into Rome itself
by Pius V. It was admitted in Britain and Ireland
before the coming of Augustine the Monk, and pre-
vailed after, except in the church of Canterbury ὅ,
which was more immediately under the Archbishop’s
eye, and more conformable to the Roman offices than
other parts of the kingdom. It has been said® that
this very Gallican Psalter is what we still retain in our
liturgy, called the reading Psalms, in contradistinction
to the other Psalms in our Bibles of the new transla-
tion. But this is not strictly true: for the old trans-
lation, though it be taken in a great measure from the
Gallican, has yet many corrections from the Hebrew,
(where they were thought wanting,) first by Coverdale
in 1535, and by Coverdale again, 1539, and, last of all,
by Tonstall and Heath in 1541; according to which

f “ Anno 1369, Urbani V. autoritate Sancitum, ut Cassinenses
Psalterio Gallicano uterentur.”—Montfauc., Diarv. Jtal., p. 331.
P. Adrian, long before, had recommended the Gallican Psalter to
the Church of Bremen. See below in ec. vi., and Bona, de Rebus
Liturg., p. 506.

gs ‘*Ante adventum Augustini Monachi, primi Archiepiscopi
Cantuariensis, in Angliam, i.e. ante annum 597, Ecclesiz Britan-
nice et Hibernice Psalterium Gallicanum receperant. Augustinus
hue a Gregorio M. missus Romanum secum advexit, et Kcclesie
suze Cantuariensi tradidit. Sed loco illius invaluit tandem, per
omnes Keclesias Anglicas, usus Gallicani.”—Hodius, lib. iii. pars
2, c. 4, p. 384.

h “‘Hodienum in Liturgia Ecclesis Anglicane retinetur editio

Gallicana: at versio illa que habetur in Bibliorum voluminibus,
queque pro authentica agnoscitur, ex Hebrico est.”—-Ibid.

88 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF

edition is the Psalter now used in our liturgy, as I
have learned by comparing: and it had been before
taken notice of by Durell’. But this in passing.

4. The Hebraic Latin Psalter means Jerome’s own
translation, immediately from the Hebrew, made in the
year 391. This, though otherwise of great esteem,
was never used in the public Church offices*. There
are but few copies of it in comparison, because this
Psalter, as before hinted, having never been in com-
mon use like the Roman and Gallican, has been con-
fined to a few hands. We are not to expect an
Athanasian Creed in this Psalter, as not being intended
for the use of the choir, neither are we to expect to
meet with it in the Italic Psalters, which are few, and
which were grown, or growing out of use before the
Athanasian Creed was brought into the public offices.
But in the Roman and Gallican Psalters we may find
it; and it will be of moment to observe in which of
them it is found. Indeed, some manuscript Psalters
there are which have the Roman and Gallican together
in opposite columns, the Gallican always set first’.
Others have the Hebraic and Gallican set column-wise,
as the former, and some have all the three versions of
Jerome placed in the like order. Dr. Hody informs
us of two such manuscripts, to which may be added

i Durell, Hecles. Anglican. Vindic., α. 27, p. 306.

k «*Tertium est de Hebrzeo in Latinum quod Teronymus trans-
tulit de Hebreeo in Latinum. Sed non est in usu Ecclesiae, sed viri
studii literati et sapientes eo utuntur.’—Roger Bacon, apud Ho-
aium, l. ὁ.

“* Hee autem (versio ex Hebreo) ideo recepta non fuit, quia duse
priores, quotidiano usu in Ecclesiis frequentate, sine magna divini
officii perturbatione non poterant abrogari.”—-Bona, de Rebus Li-
turg., lib. ii. 6. 3, p. 5063; cf. Hodium, p. 385.

1 Hodius, 1. ο.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 89

a third, now in Trinity College in Cambridge, which has
the Athanasian Creed with Bruno’s comment in it, as
intimated above. Another such triple Psalter there is
in St. John’s College of the same University, as before
hinted; and in my Lord Oxford’s library is a fine old
Latin Bible, where the Psalms appear under all the three
versions. Nay, some manuscripts have the Greek also
with the other, making a fourth column: an account
of this last sort may be seen both in Dr. Hody and Le
Long™. These double, triple, or quadruple Psalters
came not in, I presume, before the end of the tenth
century or beginning of the eleventh; for Berno Augi-
ensis of that time acquaints us with the occasion and
use of them, and how they came to be so contrived ",
When the Roman way of singing, first adapted to the
Roman Psalter, had been introduced into France and
Germany (which was first done in the eighth century),
in process of time it bred some confusion in the two
Psalters, mixing and blending them one with the other,
that it was difficult to distinguish which words be-
longed to this, and which to that. To remedy this

m Le Long, Bibl. Sacr., vol. i. p. 244.

u “Inter cetera, ex emendata LXX. interpretum translatione
Psalterium ex Greco in Latinum vertit (Hieronymus) illudque can-
tandum omnibus Gallie, ac quibusdam Germanie Ecclesiis tradidit.
Et ob hoe Gallicanum Psalterium appellavit, Romanis adhuc ex
corrupta vulgata editione Psalterium canentibus; ex qua Romani
cantum composuerunt, nobisque usum cantandi contradiderunt.
Unde accidit quod verba, que in diurnis vel nocturnis officiis ca-
nendi more modulantur, intermisceantur, et confuse nostris Psalmis
inserantur ; ut a minus peritis haud facile possit discerni quid nos-
tre, vel Romane conveniat editioni. Quod pius pater ac peritus
magister intuens, tres editiones in uno volumine composuit: et
Gallicanum Psalterium, quod nos canimus, ordinavit in una columna;
in altera Romanum, in tertia Hebreeum.”—Berno Augiens. Hpist.
inedit., apud Mabill., de Curs. Gallic., § 21, p. 396. Hodius, de
Biblior. Text. Origin., p. 382.

90 ANCIENT LATIN MANUSCRIPTS, &c.

inconvenience, a way was found out to have both the
Psalters distinctly represented to the eye together, in
two several columns, and thus came in the kind of
Psalters before mentioned. We easily see why the
Gallican used to be set in the first column, namely, be-
cause those Psalters were contrived by the French and
Germans, who made use of the Gallican, and so gave
the preference to their own. If I have detained my
reader a little too long in this digression about the
Psalters I hope the usefulness of the subject may make
him some amends and be a just apology for it. I now
return to our Creed, and what more immediately be-
longs to it; closing this chapter, as I promised, with
a table, representing a summary or short sketch of what
hath been done in it.

A TABLE OF MANUSCRIPTS,

Manuscripts, |Psalters. Titles of the Creed.
Bp. Usher’s. Fides Catholica.
Treves.
Ambrosian.
Cotton 1. Gallican. | Fides Sancti Athanasii Alexandrini.
Colbert 1.
St. Germans. Fides Sancti Athanasii Episcopi.
Vienna. Gallican. | Fides Sancti Athanasii Episcopi Alexandrini.
Regius, Paris.

Benet Coll. Cant. I. |Gallican. | Fides Sancti Anasthasii Episcopi.

Colbert 2. Fides Athanasii,

Benet C. 2. Gallican. | Fides Catholica.

St. James’s 1. Roman. |Hymnus Athanasii.

Lambeth. Gallican. | Fides Catholica S. Athanasii Episcopi.

Harleian 1. Gallican, | Fides Catholica Athanasii Alexandrini Episcopi.

Cotton 2. Gallican. | Fides Catholica Athanasii Episcopi Alexandrini.

Norfolk 1. Gallican. | Fides Catholica Athanasii Alexandrini,

Benet 6. 3.

Cotton 3. Fides Catholica.

Cambridge. Roman.

Cassinensis. Fides Catholica edita ab Athanasio, &c.

Harleian 2. | Fides Anastasii Episcopi.

Norfolk 2. Gallican. | Fides Catholica.

St. James’s 2. Fides Catholica.

Friars Minors. Gallican. | Canticum Bonefacii. [Rome.
Ce Chant fust St. Anaistaise qui Apostoilles de

Bodleian. Anastasii Expositio Symboli Apostolorum.

CHAPTER V.
Ancrent Versions, Prrnrep on Manuscript.

Some account of the ancient versions of the Athana-
sian Creed may be of use to shew when and where it
has been received, and what value hath been set upon
it, at several times and in several countries. I shall
note the time in the margin when the first version into
any language appears to have been made; and 1 shall
rank the versions of the several countries according
to the chronological order of those first versions re-
spectively.

Frencu VERSIONS.

A.D. 850. Under the name of French versions I com-
prehend all versions made at any time into the vulgar
language then current in France, whatever other name
some may please to give them. I beg leave also to
comprehend under the same name all oral versions de-
livered by word of mouth, as well as written ones;
otherwise I am sensible that I ought not to have begun
with French versions. I do not know that the Gauls,
or French, had any written standing version of this
Creed so early as 850, or for several centuries after.
Their oldest versions of the Psalter are scarce earlier
than the eleventh century, and of the entire Scripture

a See Le Long, Bibl. Sacr., vol. i. p. 818, &e.

92 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF

scarce so early as the twelfth; and we are not to expect
a written version of the Athanasian Creed more ancient
than of their Psalter. But what I mean by setting the
French versions so high as I here do, is, that the
Athanasian Creed was, as early as is here said, inter-
preted out of Latin into the vulgar tongue for the use
of the people by the clergy of France in their verbal
instructions. This is the same thing, in effect, with
a written standing version, as supplying the place of it,
and is as full a proof of the general reception of the
Creed at that time as the other would be. Now that
the Athanasian Creed was thus interpreted into the
vulgar tongue in France as early as the year 850, or
earlier, I prove from the words of Hincmar, above
cited, giving orders to the clergy of his province to be
able to express this Creed communibus verbis, that is, 1n
their vulgar or mother tongue. What that mixed kind
of language which they then used should be called is of
no great moment to our present purpose to enquire.
Some perhaps, with Vitus Amerbachius and Bishop
Usher’, will call it Teutonic, or German, because
Franks and Germans, being originally the same, spake
the same language. But I see no consequence that
because Franks and Germans used the same language,
therefore Franks and Gauls, mixed together, must still
keep the same, any more than that a mixed nation of
Normans and Saxons must all agree either in Norman
or Saxon. One would rather expect in such a mixed
people a mixed language too, as usually happens in
such cases, As to France in particular at that time,
Mr. Wharton has plainly shewn that the language there

b See above, p. 28. ¢ Usher, Histor. Dogmat., p. 111.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 93

spoken was very widely different from the Teutonic or
German.

The Concordate between the two brothers, Lewis and
Charles, at Strasburgh, puts the matter out of dispute,
where one expressed himself in the Teutonic, the other
in the language then current in France, called Roman-
ensis, or Rustica Romana, corrupt Roman, or Latin‘,
nearer to the Latin than to the German, but a confused
mixture of both. Such was the language then vulgarly
spoken in France, as appears from the specimen of it
given by Wharton from Nithardus. And this, I pre-
sume, is the language into which our Creed was inter-
preted in Hincmar’s time ; for which reason I have set
the French versions first. If any one shall contend
that the Teutonic prevailed then in the diocese of
Rheims, though not in the other parts of Gaul more
remote from Germany, I shall not think it of moment
to dispute the point, since it is not material to our
present purpose.

As to the French versions, properly so called, writ-
ten standing versions, I have said that none of them
reach higher than the eleventh century. Montfaucon
gives us one, though imperfect, 600 years old°; that is,
of the eleventh century, and very near the end of it,
about 1098, 600 years before the time of his writing;
and this is the oldest that I have anywhere found men-
tioned. Next to which, perhaps, we may reckon that in
Trinity College, in Cambridge ; I mean the interlinear
version, which Mr. Wanleyf calls Normanno-Gallican,

4 Wharton, Auctar. Histor. Dogmat., p. 344.

© Montfaucon, Diatrib., pp. 721, 727, and 733, where it is quoted
at length.

£ Wanley, Catal. MSS. Septentr., p. 168.

94 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF

about 580 years old. And next to that the Norfolk
manuscript (No. 230), before mentioned, about the
same age with the other; and Mr. Wanley informed
me of two more in my Lord Oxford’s library. There
is one in the Cotton Library (Nero, C. 4) above 500
years old, according to Mr. Wharton’. Montfaucon
gives us another above 400 years old". But it is need-
less, and foreign to my purpose, to number up all the
versions: the first in its kind is what will be chiefly

serviceable to our following enquiries.

GERMAN VERSIONS.

870. As to written and standing versions, the Ger-
man, so far as we find any records, ought to have the
first place. There is in the Emperor’s library at
Vienna‘ a German, or Teutonic, version of this Creed,
made by Otfridus, monk of Weissenberg, in the ninth
century: the manuscript, as Lambecius assures us, is
coeval with the author. There have been several later
German versions, a brief account of which may be seen
in Lambecius*, Tentzelius'; and Le Long™, but more
particularly in Tentzelius. It is sufficient to my pur-
pose to have taken notice of the first and most con-
siderable in its kind.

Awneio-Saxon VERSIONS.

930. There have been Anglo-Saxon versions of this
Creed as early as the time of King Athelstan, as ap-
pears from the manuscript of the Royal Library, with

5. Wharton, Auctar. Histor. Dogmat., p.390.

h Montfaucon, Diatrib., p. 722.

i Lambec., Catal. Biblioth. Vindobon., lib. ii. c. 5, pp. 460, 768.
k Ibid., c. 8, p. 763.

1 Tentzel., Judic. Hrud., Pref. and p. 226.

τ Le Long, Bibl. Sacr., vol. i. p. 376.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 95

an interlinear version, noted above, and which I place
in 930. The Lambeth manuscript of 957 has also an
interlinear Saxon version, both which manuscripts con-
firm the account given of an Anglo-Saxon copy of this
Creed, printed from a Latin manuscript, interlined with
Saxon, out of the church of Salisbury. The version
itself seems to have been made about the middle of the
tenth century, or about 950, which suits very well with
the age of the manuscripts before mentioned. Only
this we may expect, that the Saxon copies of those
manuscripts will be found much more correct than the
Sarum copy (and so I find that of Lambeth is, having
a copy of it by me, which I owe to the civility of the
very learned Dr. Wilkins), being written at a time
when the Saxon language was less corrupted, and re-
tained more of its primitive purity; whereas the Sarum
copy was written”, as is conjectured, after both Danes
and Normans had much altered the language. I before
observed that the title in Dr. Wotton’s copy is Zymnus
Athanasii, as in St. James’s copy; and there is some-
thing farther worth the noting, which is the Rubric
following the title, directing the Creed to be sung
alternately °, which confirms the account given by

n “¢Versionem istam circiter medium decimi seculi esse factam
ipsius sermonis cum puritate (ubi non hallucinatur interpres) con-
juncta proprietas ostendit. Recentius vero descriptam fuisse, sub
Nortmaunorum in Angliam Adventum, non tantum librarii lin-
guze Saxonice haud gnari recentior manus in qua exaratur, sed
prayum illud AnglosDanicum, vel forsan Anglo-Nortmannicum,
scribendi genus demonstrat.”—Wotton, Wot. ad Brevem Conspect.
Operis Hickesiani, p. 75.

ο Hymnus Athanasii, de Fide Trinitatis.

* <©Quem tu concelebrans, discutienter intellege. Incipit de fide,”
On which Dr. Wotton makes this note :—

* “Tta MS. Hoc est, Quem tuantiphonatim, vel alternatim psal-
lens, animo percipe.”—p. 77.

96 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF

Abbo Floriacensis? of the custom of the Gallican and
English Churches in that age. But to proceed. From
the time we have had any version of this Creed into
our country language, we may reasonably conclude that
such versions have varied by little and little in every
age, in proportion to the gradual alteration in our lan-
guage, till at length the version became such as it
stands at this day. Such as are desirous of having
a specimen of the Creed in very old English verse may
find one in Dr. Hickes’s Thesaurus; and they may see
a good part of a prose version in old English (though
considerably later than the other) in Wickliff’s Com-
ment, before mentioned; or an entire version into the
English of that time in a manuscript of Pepys’s Library,
now belonging to our college, No. 2498, p. 368. I may
here note, that all our Saxon and English versions down
to the time of the Reformation, or to the year 1548,
were from the Latin only, and not from any Greek
copy; and after that time, upon the return of Popery,
the old version from the Latin came again into use for
a while, as appears by the Primer set forth by Cardinal
Pole in Queen Mary’s days, a.p. 1555. But these and
the like observations are out of the compass of my de-
sign, and so I pass on.

Greek VERSIONS.

IT have before intimated that this Creed was origi-
nally Latin, and therefore the Greek copies can be no
more than versions; and they appear to be very late
also, in comparison to the former. However, since the

P See above, p. 31.
a Hickes, Thesuur. Linguar. Septentr., vol. i. p. 228.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 97

Greek is one of the learned languages, since the Creed
has been ascribed to a Greek author, and has been also
supposed by many to have been written in Greek, it
will therefore be proper to give as particular and as
distinct account as is possible of the Greek version or
versions. Our enquiries here will lie within a little
compass, for the Greek copies are neither many nor
ancient. Montfaucon, a very diligent searcher into
these matters, frankly professes that he had never seen
any Greek copy of this Creed so old as 300 years, nor
ever heard of any that was ancient’. He scruples not
to say farther, that there had not been yet seen any
Greek record, of certain and undoubted credit, whereby
to prove that this Creed had been known to the Greek
Church for more than 500 years upwards’. He speaks
only of Greek records; as to Latin ones, they afford
sufficient proof that this Creed was pleaded against the
Greeks in the dispute about the Procession, in the
eighth or ninth century at latest, and therefore must
have been in some measure known to them. The
Greeks and Latins had some dispute on that head in the
Synod of Gentilly, not far from Paris, in the year 767,
under King Pepin. But perhaps this Creed was not

r “Sane nullum vidimus Grecum hujus Symboli Codicem qui
trecentorum sit annorum ; nec antiquum alium a quopiam visum
fuisse novimus.”—Montfaucon, Diatrib., p. 727.

s “ Adjicere non pigeat non visum hactenus fuisse Grecorum
quodpiam monumentum (certum scilicet ac indubitatum) quo ab
annis plus quingentis notum Ecclesi# Grece fuisse Symbolum, Qui-
cunque, possit comprobari.”—Ib., p. 721.

To the same purpose speaks Combefis of this Creed :—

** Vix enim extat preeterquam in recentiorum collectaneis, libris-
que eorum polemicis, quibus ipsum vel impugnant, vel etiam de-
fendunt ; idque volunt illi qui aiunt non haberi in Grecorum libris ;
non enim sic stupidi videntur ut negent Grece haberi.”—Combef.,

Jot. ad Man. Calec., p. 297.

H

98 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF

pleaded at that time; at least it does not appear that
it was.

It cannot be doubted but that the Greeks had heard
something of this Creed from the Latins as early as the
days of Ratram and AZneas Parisiensis, that is, above
850 years ago, when the dispute about the procession
between the Greeks and Latins was on foot; this the
testimonies above cited plainly shew. But this is not
enough to prove that the Greek Church had yet any
value for this Creed, or that there was then extant any
Greek copy of it.

1200. Nicolaus Hydruntinus, cited above, who flou-
rished under Alexius I[V., Emperor of the East, and
Pope Innocent III., that is, in round numbers about
1200, gives us the first notice of this Creed being ex-
tant in Greek in his time. He observes, that the
Article of the Procession from the Son was not in the
Greek copy of this Creed, as neither in the Nicene,
blaming the Latins, as I apprehend, for interpolating
both. The censure was just with respect to the Nicene
Creed, but not with respect to the Athanasian, which
certainly never wanted that Article, as is plain from
the agreement of the Latin copies, and the earliest of
them, those of a thousand years date, which I remark by
the way. As to our present purpose, this is certain, that
some time before Nicolaus of Otranto wrote, the Creed
had been translated into Greek by a Greek, or at least
by one that took part with the Greeks in the question
about the Procession. It can hardly be imagined that
Nicolaus had translated it himself, and that he appealed
to his own version. There must have been a version
before, undoubtedly ; and one can scarce suppose less

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 99

than fifty or one hundred years before, since both
the time and author of it were forgotten, and this
Greek version passed with Nicolaus for Athanasius’s
original, Manuel Caleca‘, who wrote about the year
1360, intimates that there had been Greek copies long
before his time, and that the most ancient of all had
the Article of the Procession from the Son, and that the
older Greeks who wrote against the Latins did not pre-
tend to strike out that Article, as those did that came
after. Could we depend upon this report we might
then be certain that the Greek copies of the time of
Nicolaus Hydruntinus, were late in comparison, and
that there had been other Greek copies much more
ancient. But this I leave to the consideration of the
learned. However this fact be, one thing is certain,
that the oldest Greek copy could be only a version,
whether sooner or later.

As to Greek copies now extant in manuscript, they
are but few and modern. I may here give a short
account of them, of as many as I have hitherto found
mentioned in books or catalogues of manuscripts.

1. There is one in the Emperor’s Library at Vienna,
said to be in paper, ancient, and of good value*. These

t «MTestantur autem hance ipsam fidei confessionem sancti viri
(Athanasii) esse, atque id dictum ita se habere, qui contra Latinos
multo ante scripserunt ; quam sibi ut adversim frustra labefactare
nituntur. Atque, ut intelligi datur, tune quidem adhuc servaba-
tur; postmodum vero pertinaciores ad contradicendum facti, ome
nino illam auferre voluerunt: etsi modo nihilominus curiose inqui-
rentibus raro, licet in vetustissimis codicibus, ita habere invenitur.”
—Man. Calec., contr. Gree., lib. ii. ; in Bibl. Max. PP., vol. xxvi.

p. 414.

« “ CCXLY. Codex MS. Theologicus Grecus est Chartaceus, anti-
quus, et b»nz note in 4to., constatque foliis 341.

“‘Continentur eo Hee.

«Primo, Xe.

100 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF

words are too general to fix any certain date upon.
One may guess from the paper, that the manuscript is
not very ancient, since paper came not into frequent or
common use before the thirteenth century. But not to
insist upon a disputable argument (since cotton paper,
though not common, was however sometimes used as
early as the tenth century), one may judge more cer-
tainly from what is written in the same volume, and,
I suppose, in the same hand (for Nesselius makes no
distinction), that the copy of the Creed is not earlier
than the middle of the fourteenth century. Maximus
Planudes makes a part of the manuscript: he flourished
about the year 1340.

2. There is another Greek manuscript of this Creed
in the same library, a paper one too, and said to be ©
pretty ancient, by Nesselius, who gives account of it’.
From the mention therein made of the Creed’s being
presented to Pope Julius, I should be apt to conclude
that the manuscript is not earlier, nor copied from any
earlier, than Manuel Caleca’s time, or the fourteenth
century; but there are other marks, particularly some
pieces of Julianus Cardinalis, which demonstrate that

“‘TIdo et quidem a fol. 77, ad fol. 79: S. Athanasii Archi-
episcopi Alexandrini Symbolum Fidei, cujus titulus et principium,
Tov ἁγίου ᾿Αθανασίου Tov μεγάλου. “Ootis δ᾽ ἂν βούληται σωθῆναι,
πρὸ πάντων χρὴ κρατεῖν πίστιν," &c.—Nessel., Catal., νο]. 1. p. 344,

v * CXCmus Codex MS..... est Chartaceus, mediocriter anti-
quus, et bone note, in 4to. Constatque nune foliis 332, et ad
J ohannem Sambucum—olim pertinuit. Continentur eo Hee.
I. primo,” ἄο.

“XVIII. Et quidem a fol. 303, ad fol. 304. S. Athanasii magni,
Archiepiscopi Alexandrini, Confessio Catholica Fidei, ad 5. Julium
Pontificem Romanum ; cujus et titulus et principium Tod ἐν ἁγίοις
πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἘΣ fou τοῦ μεγάλου ‘Oporoyla τῆς καθολικῆς
πίστεως ἣν ἔδωκε πρὸς Ιούλιον Πάπαν Ῥώμης. Τῷ θέλοντι σωθῆναι,"

&c.—Nessel., Catal., vol. i. p. 281.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 101

the manuscript cannot be much older than the middle
of the fifteenth century.

3. Felckman had a manuscript copy of this Creed in
Greek, without any title to it, or any author named *.
I can say nothing to the age of it, for want of further
particulars.

4, Felckman had another manuscript out of the
Palatine Library (which library is since transferred
partly to the Vatican, the rest to Munich, &c.), with
a title to it, σύμβολον τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Αθανασίου, St. Athana-
sius’s CreedY. The title alone is a sufficient argument
of its being modern to any that consider what were the
more usual and ancient titles represented above. It is
to be noted, that those two manuscript copies are so
nearly the same, that they make but one copy in print,
which has been inserted in all the editions of Athana-
sius’s works after Felckman’s, as well as in his, and
makes the fifth in Gundlingius?, who gives us six
Greek copies of this Creed. It is observable that this
copy owns not the Procession from the Son; from
whence we may infer that it was not made by the
Latins, or, however, not by any who were not friends
to the Greeks.

x “‘Extat hoe Symbolum in nostro Codice II. anonymo, sed
absque titulo et nomine authoris ; unde et sic editum.”—Felckman,
Var. Lect. in Athan., p.83.

“Tncipit ; εἴ τις θέλει σωθῆναι, πρὸ πάντων χρὴ αὐτῷ τὴν καθολι-
κὴν κρατῆσαι πίστιν, &e.

y “‘Invenimus id ipsum etiam post in codice quodam Palatine
Bibliothecw, expresse Athanasio inscriptum (licet id recentiores
Greeci nolint, ut videre est ex epistola Meletii Constantinopolitani
Patriarch ad Douzam) ex quo etiam discrepantias quasdam no-
tabimus.

“ Incipit ; εἴ τις θέλει σωθῆναι, πρὸ πάντων χρεία ἐστὶν ἵνα τὴν

καθολικὴν κρατήσῃ πίστιν," &c.—Felckman, 2b.

* Gundling., not. ad Zialowsk., p. 76.

102 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF

5. Lazarus Baifius’s copy*, which he had from
Venice in the time of Francis I., in the year 1533, was
published by Genebrard, in the year 1569. This copy
probably was contrived by a Latin (having the Proces-
sion from the Son in it), or, at least, by some honest
Greek who would not vary from the original. I con-
clude this Greek copy to be modern, from the title, for
a reason before hinted.

6. There was another manuscript copy” of this
Creed, which Nicolaus Bryling first printed at Basil,
and afterwards H. Stevens in France, in the year 1565.
This also must, in all probability, be very modern,
because of σύμβολον in the title. It acknowledges the
Procession from the Son, conformable to the original.

7. In the Roya! Library at Paris (No. 2502) there
is another manuscript Greek copy of this Creed *, writ-
ten in the year 1562, published by Genebrard, 1569,
and said by him to belong to the Church of Constan-
tinople. This was taken from an older manuscript,

a “Titulus: ἜἜκθεσις ὁμολογίας τῆς καθολικῆς πίστεως τοῦ μεγά-
λου ᾿Αθανυσίου πατριάρχου ᾿Αλεξανδρείας πρὸς ᾿Ιούλιον Πάπαν.

“TIncipit. “Ὅστις ἂν βούληται σωθῆναι, πρὸ πάντων χρὴ κρατεῖν
τὴν καθολικὴν πίστιν." ---αΘπΘὈγαγα, p. 3.

υ “Titulus: Σύμβολον τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Αθανασίου.

“Incipit : Ὅστις βούλεται σωθῆναι, &c.—Genebrard, 1. ὁ.

¢ “De Grecis autem codicibus pauca suppetunt dicenda, cum
unum tantum nobis inspicere licuerit, scil. Reg. 2502. In quo
pate Symbol superiore seculo exaratum.’’—Montf., Diatrib.,

« 722.

**Secunda, quam edimus formula, jam olim publici juris facta
per Genebrardum anno 1569, quam ait 1116 esse Ecclesize Con-
stantinopolitane, extat in Regio Codice Num, 2502, olim ex Bib-
liotheea Johannis Huralti Boistallerii a Carolo 1X. Venetias legati :
in quo Codice hee leguntur, ante Dialogum §. Athanasii cum Ario,
.... Transcriptus et recognitus liber hic est, ex vetustissimo ex-
emplari Cretico ; Venetiis an. 1562, impensa facta aureorum Χ.
eS Sacerdos transcripsit et habuit.” —Montf., Dzatrib.,
p- 727.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 103
but how much older cannot certainly be known ἃ.
One may imagine from the title’, and beginning of
it, that the form is the same with one of those in
the Emperor’s Library, and that they were copied one
from the other, or both from a third copy. This ma-
nuscript acknowledges the Procession from the Son.
I had understood, from Mountfaucon’s general way of
expression, that Genebrard had published his copy
from this very manuscript of the Royal Library (No.
2502). But observing that Genebrard’s wants some
words (ἀΐδιος ὁ πατὴρ, ἀΐδιος ὁ vids, ἀΐδιον τὸ πνεῦμα TO
ἅγιον) which Mountfaucon’s copy has, I conclude that
he meant only the same form, as to matter and words,
for the most part, not the same manuscript.

8. There is another manuscript Greek version, or
rather paraphrase of this Creed, having several inter-
polations, published by Bishop Usher, in 1647, from
a copy sent him by Patrick Young. It has been often
since printed: in the Councils, in Gundling, and in
Montfaucon.

It leaves out the Article of Procession from the Son ;
from whence we may judge that it was composed by
a Greek, or Grecizing Latin. The title insinuates that
the Creed was drawn up in the Nicene Council‘, an

4 “Tneertum autem utrum ex illo quod memorat vetustissimo
exemplari, Symbolum etiam sit mutuatus ; Codex quippe ample
molis multa et varia complectitur, que dubitare licet ex unone
Codice exscripta fuerint, an ex compluribus.”—Montf., ib.

e «Titulus: Tod ἐν ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν ᾿Αθανασίου τοῦ μεγάλου
ὋὉμολογία τῆς καθολικῆς πίστεως ἣν ἔδωκε πρὸς ᾿Ιυύλιον Πάπαν
“Ῥώμης.

“ὁ Τηροῖρὶῦ: Τῷ θέλοντι σωθῆναι, &c.—Montf., p. 729.

[Ἔκ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ οἰκουμενικῆς τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ, περὶ πίστεως

~ n / ΩΣ
κατὰ συντομίαν, καὶ πῶς δεῖ πιστεύειν τὸν ἀληθῆ χριστιανόν. ---

Usher, de Symb., p. 99 (26).

104 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF

opinion entertained by Johan. Cyparissiota, about the
year 1360, as observed above. When this story or
fiction first came in I cannot pretend to determine.
Bishop Usher speaks of a very ancient manuscript,
partly in Irish and partly in Latin, which hints at the
same thing: but he fixes no date to the manuscript;
the words, ‘‘ very ancient,” are too general to give sa-
tisfaction in it. The Creed is there said to have been
composed in the Nicene Council by Eusebius and Diony-
sius, and a third left nameless’, as not being known.
The author of that book of hymns must have been
very ignorant not to know Athanasius, who was un-
doubtedly the third man, and for whose sake (to ac-
count for the Creed’s being written in Latin) the whole
story seems to have been contrived. By Eusebius must
have been intended Eusebius of Verceil, in Piedmont,
a Latin, and a great friend and intimate of Athanasius :
by Dionysius undoubtedly is meant Dionysius, Bishop of
Milan, of the same time and of the same principles, and
well acquainted with Eusebius*. Had the contrivers
of the fable laid their scene at Alexandria, where
Athanasius and this Eusebius, with several other
Latins, met together in the year 362, they had made

ε “In Hymnorum, partim Latino partim Hibernico Sermone scrip-
torum, Codice vetustissimo. . . notatum reperi, trium Episcoporum
opera in eadem Niczena Synodo illud fuisse compositum, Eusebii,
et Dionysii, et nomen tertii (sic enim ibi legitur) nescimus.”—
Usher, de Symb., preef. p. 2.

h It seems highly probable, that the whole fable about Euse-
bius and Dionysius was first raised out of a passage of St. Am-
brose, which might be thought to hint some such thing. The
words are :—

“‘Itaque ut Eusebius Sanctus prior levavit vexillum confessionis,
ita Beatus Dionysius in exilii locis, priori martyribus titulo vitam
exhalavit.”—Ambros., ad Vercellens., Ep. 63, vol. ii. p. 1039,

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 105

it the more plausible. But let us return to our Greek
copies, from which we have a little digressed.

This is observable of the Greek copies in general,
that they differ very widely from each other, and
therefore cannot be copies of one and the same version.
Possibly three or four of them may be thrown into one,
admitting, however, many various lections; but still
there will be as many remaining which cannot be so
dealt with, but must be looked upon as distinct and
different versions. Such as desire to see all the copies
together may find them in Gundling and Montfaucon ;
four at large, the rest exhibited only by various lec-
tions. I do not know whether the manuscripts of the
Vienna Library have been collated for any of the
printed editions: perhaps not; I do not remember
that I have met with any mention of them in any of
the editors of the printed copies.

It may be of use to set the printed editions, after
our account of the manuscripts, in chronological order,
as distinctly as may be, since we cannot fix the dates
of the manuscript copies.

1540. 1. The first printed edition was by Nicolaus
Bryling', a printer of Basil. My authors have been
deficient in not setting down the date of it. I have
endeavoured to fix the year, but have not yet been so
happy as to come to a certainty in it. Wherefore,
I hope, my reader will excuse it, if, rather than set no

i “Quod olim evulgavit Basilee Nicolaus Bryling; deinde in
Gallia an. 1565, Henricus Stephanus.’ —Genebrard, in Symb.
Athanas., p. 8.

“¢Quam post Nic. Brylingium et Mich. Neandrum, H. Stephanus
in lucem edidit anno 1565.”—Fabric., Bibl. Grec., lib. v. ο. 2,
§ 88, in vol. v. p. 315.

106 ANCIENT VERSIONS OF

year at all, I choose one which I know cannot be very
much over or under, because of other pieces printed by
the same Bryling about that time. Fabricius mentions
Michael Neander as editor of the same copy after Bry-
ling, and before Stephens, but what year is not said.
Sebastian Lepusculus’s* edition of the same was in
1559', and Stephens’s in 1565.

1569. 2. The second printed copy was taken from
the manuscript of Lazarus Buiffius, which he received
from Dionysius™, a Greek, in the year 1533, as before
hinted. This was first printed by Genebrard in the
year 1569, again in 1585, and oftentimes since. This
copy is sometimes called the Dionysian copy ; and it is
observed by Gundling to differ from the first copy
but in seven places, and therefore these two have been
commonly thrown into one by the editors of both.

1569. 3. The third copy was also first printed by
Genebrard, at the same time with the other. It has
gone under the name of the Constantinopolitan copy,
because Genebrard supposed it to have been in use at
Constantinople®. It differs considerably from both the

k Lepusculus, Compend. Josephi Gorionidis, p. 49.

1 Nic. Serarius, who wrote in the year 1590, speaking of that
first copy printed by Bryling and Stephens, says as follows :—

“Quarum prima vulgata dici potest, eo quod hactenus ea sola hic
apud nos, Germania et Gallia, typis evulgata fuerit.” — Nicol.
Serar., de Symbol. Athanas. : in Opusc. Theolog., vol. ii. p. 9.

πὶ “* Hoc Symbolum reperi in libro Greco MS. de Processione
Spiritus Sancti, quem Lazaro Baiffio Oratori Regis Francisci I. apud
Venetos, obtulit Dionysius Grecus, Episcopus Zienensis et Fir-
miensis an. 1533.”—Genebrard, p. 8.

“In manus meas pervenit liber quidam Grecus, de Processione
Spiritus Sancti, oblatus Lazaro Bayftio claro Regis nostri Francisci I.
apud Venetos Oratori, anno Christi 1533. Quem manu sua elegan-
tissime pinxerat Nicolaus Sophianus patrum nostrorum evo vir
valde doctus.”—Genebrard, p. 2; cf. Gundling, p. 69.

2 “Superius Symbolum Athanasii verbis aliquantulum immu-

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 107

other, and is never thrown into one with them, but
kept distinct by itself.

1600. 4. The fourth is the Commeline, or Felck-
man’s copy, from the Palatine manuscripts, often re-
printed with Athanasius’s works. This also stands by
itself, as a distinct version.

1647. 5. The fifth was first published by Usher, in
the year 1647. This differs extremely from all the
rest, having, besides many variations, and slight inser-
tions, one very large interpolation. 1t hath been often
reprinted since Usher’s time °.

1671. 6. The sixth and last was first published by
Labbe and Cossart n the second tome of Councils.
This copy comes the nearest to the two first, and there-
fore is sometimes thrown into one with them; but it
differs from both in about forty places, according to
Gundling’s computation.

These are all the printed copies, which are some-
times called four and sometimes six: four, because the
first, second, and sixth may be tolerably thrown into
one; six, because they may also be kept distinct, and
may be reckoned as so many copies at least, if not so
many several versions. So much for the Greek ver-
sions of our Creed.

To the versions already mentioned may be added the
Sclavonian, of several dialects, and, as I conceive, pretty
ancient. But we have little or no account of them,
only, as I shall shew in the sequel, we may be certain
that there have been such. There are Italian, Spanish,
tatis Constantinopolitani sic Greece legunt, et recitant.”—Gene-

brard, p. 14.
ο Usher, de Symbolis, p. 33.

108 ANCIENT VERSIONS, ὅσ.

Irish, and Welsh versions; but whether any that can
justly be called ancient I know not. Future searches
into libraries may perhaps produce farther discoveries.
Fabricius makes mention of an Hebrew version of late
date, and of an Arabic one still later’: but these, or
the like modern versions, will be of no use to us in our
present enquiries.

p “ Hebraice versum a Julio Marcello Romano MS. in Bibliotheca
Vaticana memorat Imbonatus in Bibl. Latino-Hebraica, p. 149.
Sed omitto recentiores versiones, ut Arabicam a Nisselio editam
Lugd. Bat. 1656, 4to., una cum Cantico Canticorum.”—Fabric., Bibl.
Gree., lib. v. c. 2, § 88, in vol. v. p. 315.

** Georgius Nisselius Symbolum Athanasii Arabico idiomate cum
Cantico Canticorum Aithiopice et Arabice edito Ludg. Bat. an.
1656, conjunxit . . . id tamen non hausit ex Codice MS. sed ipse in
Arabicum Sermonem transtulit.”—Tentzel., p. 125,

CHAPTER VI.

Or rue REcEPTION oF THE ATHANASIAN CREED IN THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.

From the materials here laid down we may now be
able to determine something about the reception of the
Creed, especially in the Western Churches; among
which the Churches of France, or Gaul, ought un-
doubtedly to be nam-d first.

France, 08 GavL.

4.D. 550. This Creed obtained in France in the time
of Hinemar, or about 850, without all dispute. We
may advance higher up to 772; for it was then in
Charles the Great’s Psalter, among the Hymns of the
Church. The Cotton manuscript Psalter, with this
Creed in it, will carry us up to 703; and the Canon of
the Council of Autun to 670; at which time the Gallican
clergy, at least of the Diocese of Autun, in the Province
of Lyons, were obliged to recite this Creed, together
with the Apostles’, under pain of episcopal censure,
which shews of how great value and esteem the Creed
was at that time, and affords a strong presumption (as
Quesnel and Pagi* well argue in the case) that it had

* < Dubium non est quin multis ante synodum illam Augustodu-
nensem annis compositum esset, et jam olim per totam Ecclesiam
celebre evasisset: nunquam enim sapientissimi antistites id come
misissent, ut istam fidei formulam omnium ordinum clericis am-

plectendam, et irreprehensibiliter, ut aiunt, recensendam, synodali
edicto sub condemnationis poena preciperent ; imo et illam e re-

110 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

been in use there long before. There will be some
doubt, as I intimated above, about the supposed Canon
of the Council of Autun, which will in some measure
abate the force of our evidence, and of the argument
built upon it. But as it is certain, from other evi-
dence, that this Creed was received in the Gallican
Churches as high as 772 or 703, so it must be owned
that this very much confirms the supposition of the
Council of Autun; and the concurring circumstances
give very great light and strength to each other. But
what most of all confirms the foregoing evidence, and
the reasoning upon it, is, that Venantius Fortunatus,
a full hundred years before the Council of Autun, had
met with this Creed in the Gallican parts, and found it
then to be in such esteem as to deserve to be comment-
ed upon, like the Lord’s Prayer and Apostles’ Creed:
accordingly he wrote comments upon it, as well as
upon the other. This wonderfully confirms the reason-
ing of Quesnel and Pagi, that this Creed must have
been in use there near a hundred years before the
Council of Autun, that is, as high as 570, about which
time Fortunatus flourished and wrote. And consider-
ing that this Creed must have been for sometime grow-
ing into repute before it could be thought worthy to
have such honour paid it along with the Lord’s Prayer
and Apostles’ Creed, I may perhaps be allowed to set
the time of its reception in the Gallican Churches some
gione cum Symbolo A postolico ponerent, nisi jam longo usu recepta,
approbata, et inter Germanas Magni Athanasii lucubrationes nu-
merata fuisset ; quod nisi post plurium annorum seriem fieri vix
potuit.”—Quesnel, Dissert. xiv. p. 731.

“‘Quare jam ante centum fere annis opus illud Athanasio attri-

butum fuerat.”—Pagi, Critic. in Baron., Ann. 340, § 6, p. 120.
(vol. i. p. 441).

ΕΣ

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 11

years higher: reception of it, I mean, as an excellent
formulary, or an acknowledged rule of faith, though not
perhaps admitted into their sacred offices. Upon the
whole, and upon the strength of the foregoing evidences,
we may reasonably conclude that the reception of this
Creed in the Gallican Churches was at least as early as
670, understanding it of its reception into the public
offices: but understanding it of its reception as a rule
of faith, or an orthodox and excellent formulary and
system of belief, it may be justly set as high as 550,
which is but twenty years, or thereabout, before For-
tunatus commented upon it. Le Quien scruples not to
set it as high as 500°.

Span.

630. Next to France we may mention her near
neighbour Spain, which seems to have received this
Creed very early, and within less than a hundred years
after the time before fixed for its reception in France.
As to the truth of the fact, it may be argued two seve-
ral ways. 1. From the near affinity and relation be-
tween the Spanish and Gallican offices before either
France or Spain had received the Roman. 2. From
the fourth Council of Toledo, their quoting passages
from this very Creed.

1. As to the first argument, though a general one, it
must appear of great weight. If the sacred offices in
France and Spain were in those times the same, or very
nearly so, then the reception of this Creed in France

> ““Non nisi ex eodem Symbolo, quod jam ante receptum esset,
Avitus Viennensis . .. alicubi scribebat,’ &.—Le Quien, Dissert.
Damascen., p. 98.

112 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

will afford a very considerable argument of its recep-
tion in Spain also.

Cardinal Bona is very large and diffuse in setting
forth the agreement and harmony of the old Gallican
offices with the Spanish in sundry particulars®; and
he supposes this uniformity of the two Churches to
have been as early, at least, as the days of Gregory,
Bishop of Tours, who died in the year 595. Mabillon,
after him, frequently asserts the same thing?, and with
greater assurance than Bona had done, having met with
new and fuller evidences to prove it, only he dates the
agreement of the Spanish Mosarabick offices with the
Gallican from the third and fourth Councils of Toledo®,
the latter of which was in the year 633. Mr. Dodwell,
speaking of the same matter, says, ‘‘ Nor does Mabillon
himself judge it probable that the innovations attempted
by Pope Vigilius in Spain held long, of what kind
soever they were. All Spain was soon after united in
one form, and that different from the Romans, and
agreeing with the Gallican’.”’ It is, therefore, a plain
case that the Gallican and Spanish offices were very
much the same in the beginning of the seventh cen-
tury, and so continued for some time. If, therefore,
the Gallican Churches received the Athanasian Creed
into their public offices before the year 670, it will ap-
pear extremely probable that the Spanish received it
also, and about the same time. I here make a distinc-
tion, as I did before, between receiving the Creed as

¢ Bona, de Rebus Liturg., lib. i. ο. 12, p. 372.

4 Mabillon, de Liturgy. Gallican., Pref., §§ 2, 3; lib. i. c. 3,
88 9, 14, pp. 20, 29.

e Tbid., lib. 1..0. 4, ὃ 8, 9, p. 30.
f Dodwell, of Incense, p- 190.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 115

arule of faith, and receiving it into the solemn offices,
to be recited or sung in churches. The reception of it,
in the first sense, I conceive to have been somewhat
earlier, in Spain as well as in France, than its recep-
tion in the latter sense. But as different Churches in
France had anciently different customs, so also was it
in Spain; and therefore it is probable that the recep-
tion of this Creed into the public offices was in some
Churches sooner, and in others later, according to the
various rites, customs, and circumstances of the several
Churches.

But I proceed to the Second Article, whereby we are
to prove the reception of this Creed in Spain.

2. The fourth Council of Toledo cites a considerable
part of this Creed, adopting it into their own Confes-
sion$. We may be confident that the Creed did not
borrow the expressions from them, but they from the
Creed, since we are certain that this Creed was made
long before the year 633. The reference to this very
Creed appears so plain in the words of that Council,
that most of the learned have concluded from thence
that the Spanish fathers had both seen and approved
this Creed. Baronius is positive that the Council took
their expressions from it. Calvisius dates the publi-

& ‘* Nec personas confundimus, nec substantiam separamus. Pa-
trem a nullo factum, vel genitum dicimus: Filium a Patre non
factum, sed genitum, asserimus: Spiritum vero Sanctum nec crea-
tum, nec genitum, sed procedentem a Patre et Filio profitemur,
ipsum autem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum . .. ex substantia
Patris ante secula genitum... equalis Patri secundum divinita-
tem, minor Patre secundum humanitatem. .. . Hee est Catholic
Ecclesiz Fides: hane Confessionem conservamus, atque tenemus.
Quam quisqguis firmissime custodierit, perpetuam salutem habebit.”’
—Concil. Tolet. IV. Capitul I., in Labbe, Concil., vol. v. p. 1704.

h “Ex eodem Athanasii Symbolo ea verba primi capituli To-
letani quarti Concilii deducta noscuntur, quibus dicitur, Patrem

I

114 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

cation of the Creed from that Council‘; so also Alste-
dius*. Gavantus, in his Comments upon the Roman
Breviary, concludes from thence that this Creed had
been read in the Church as high as that time!. Helvi-
cus™ falls in with the opinion of Calvisius and Alstedius,
grounded upon the expressions of this Council being
parallel to those of the Creed. These authors have
perhaps carried the point too far in supposing this
a sufficient proof of any public reception of the Creed
in Spain at that time, or of its being read in their
churches; but it is clear enough that the Spanish fathers
had both seen and approved it, otherwise they could not,
or would not, have borrowed so plainly from it. Thus
much is allowed by most of the learned moderns, as Ques-
nel", Natalis Alexander 5, Montfaucon ?, Tillemont 4,

a nullo factum,” &c.—Baron., Annal., ann. 340, § 12, vol. iii. p. 529

. 436).

‘** Repositum fuit in archivis, nec publicatum, nisi, quantum ex
historiis conjicere licet, post trecentos fere annos, ubi in Concilio
Toletano quarto quedam ex eo translata verba recensentur.’”’—
Seth Calvis., Op. Chronolog., ann. 340, p. 544 (396).

k ἐς Symbolum Athanasii ab illo scriptum est Rome itidem con-
tra Arium. Publicatum est post 300 fere annos in Concilio Tole-
tano, et inde usque ad nostra tempora in Ecclesia usurpatum,’’—
Alsted., Thesaur., p. 178.

1 « Athanasius dum esset Rome, scripsit Latine Symbolum....
et recitavit coram Pontifice et ei assidentibus, ann. 340, ut scribit
Baronius ; et est illud idem, immutatum, leyzique solitum in Eccle-
sia, ante annos nongentos sexaginta. Vide Annales ad annum
predictum.”—Gavant., Comment. in Breviar. Rom., vol. ii. p. 69
(p. 106).

; m6 eee Symbolum seribit Rome, et Concilio offert ; non
tamen publicatur, nisi post 300 ferme annos in Concilio Toletano.”
—Helvic., Theatr. Histor., ad ann. 339.

π “Tmo et jam ab anno 633 aliqua ex isto Symbolo descripta
mihi videntur in ea confessione fidei, quae edita est a Concilio Tole-
tano iv. habeturque capit. i. ejusdem.”— Quesnel, Dissert. xiv.

151:
᾿ ο Natal. Alexand., vol. iv. p. 109.

P Montfauc., Diatrib., p. 720.

4 Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. viii. p. 283 (p. 670).

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 115

Muratorius, Oudin’, and others, that the expres-
sions of that Council and this Creed are parallel, and
one borrowed from the other, and the words of the
Council from the words of the Creed, only Muratorius
hints as if a doubt might be made whether the Council
took from the Creed, or the Creed from the Council ὃ,
which may seem strange in him, who supposes the
Creed to have been made by Fortunatus many years
before that Council was held. But, I suppose, he is
there speaking of the argument drawn from the words
of that Council alone, abstracting from the other cir-
cumstance, and previous to the consideration of Fortu-
natus’s comment, otherwise he is guilty of a very great
oversight. It appears, then, that this Creed was known
and approved in Spain as early as 633; and it is ob-
servable how exactly this falls in with the time when
the Spanish Churches are supposed to have received
the Gallican offices, according to Mabillon’s account.
Wherefore it is extremely probable, that about this
time they received this Creed from the Gallican
Churches; received it as an orthodox formulary, and
an approved rule of faith. As to their taking it into
their public service and Psalmody, I pretend not to set
it so high, having no proof that they did receive it in
that sense so early; but as soon as the Gallican
Churches made it a part of their Psalmody, we may

τ Oudin, Comment. de Scriptor. Eccl., vol. i. p. 348.

5. ««Verum ne majoris quidem momenti sunt verba illa, que in
Concilii Toletani quarti professione Fidei leguntur: quamvis enim
phrases nonnulle ibidem inveniantur Symboli phrasibus oppido
similes, attamen ejusmodi non sunt ut iis patribus Symbolum jam
innotuisse demonstrent. Quin ex eodem Concilio has formulas
quis delibasse videri potest, ut inde Symbolum istud conflaret.”—
Murator., Anecdot., vul. ii. p. 223.

116 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

reasonably think that the Spanish did so too, or within
a very short time after.

GERMANY.

787. Next to France and Spain we may mention
Germany; not only because of their nearness of situa-
tion to France, but also because of their mutual inter-
course and affinity with each other. This Creed, very
probably, was received in some parts of Germany soon
after it obtained in the Gallican Church. The mutual
intercourse of the German and Gallican Churches makes
it probable; and the ancient manuscript of the Creed
found at Treves, or Triers, in Germany, may persuade
the same thing. Our positive evidence is, however,
clear and certain for the reception of the Creed as
early as 870, being then translated by Otfridus into the
German or Teutonic language. Anscharius’s instruc-
tions to his clergy (above mentioned) will afford an
argument for the reception of this Creed in Germany
from the time of his holding the See of Hamburg, or
from 830: and it was received at Basil, as we learn
from Hatto, bishop of the place, before 820. Indeed,
I have above referred Basil to France, considering how
it stood in Hatto’s time, and that it was part of ancient
Gaul; but then it was upon the confines of Germany,
and has in later times been reckoned to it, and we have
good reason to think that the customs of the German
Churches in the ninth century were nearly the same
with those of the Church of Basil in 820. What
passed in the Council of Frankfort (if I mistake not in
my construction of it) may warrant the carrying it up
as high as 794; and it was seven years before that,

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. ΠῚ

namely, in the year 787*, that Pope Adrian sent to
St. Willehad, Bishop of Breme, the famous Psalter of
Charles the Great", with this Creed in it, the same
that I have spoken of above. No wonder, therefore,
that Anscharius and Rembertus, afterwards Archbishops
of Hamburg and Breme, so very highly valued this
Creed. The particular regard paid to this Creed by
Charles the Great, in the year 772, may plead perhaps
in favour of a more early date; at least, no doubt can
be made but as soon as he came to be Emperor, if not
a great deal sooner, the German Churches (as well as
the Gallican before) admitted this Creed even into their
public offices. It is of this time that an anonymous
author, cited above, in a tract directed to Charlemagne,
then Emperor, says that this Creed was professed by
the Universal Church. We cannot, however, be mis-
taken in setting the reception of it in Germany as high
as the year 787. So high may pass for certain fact ;
and there is great probability for the running it up
many years higher.

ENGLAND.

800. As to our own country, we have clear and posi-
tive proof of the Creed’s being sung alternately in our
churches in the tenth century, when Abbo of Fleury,

t Mabill., Act. Sanct., sec. 3, part 2, vol. iv. p. 409.

ἃ “Codex iste. ...in Bibliotheca cubiculari sammi Pontificis
Hadriani I. permansit usque ad annum DOCLXXXVIU. quo 8. Wil-
lehadus ab eodem cum consensu Caroli M. primus Episcopus Bre-
mensis declaratus est. Tune videlicet P. P. Hadrianus eundem
illum Codicem Psalterii, quem ipse in principio Pontificatus sui
tanquam munus gratulatorium a Carolo Magno acceperat, eadem
ratione donavit 5. Willebado, ut et ille, in novo Episcopatu suo,
frueretur usu sacri istius muneris.”—Lambec. Catal. Bibl. Vindob.,
lib. ii. 6. 5, p. 297.

118 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

an ear-witness of it, was here, and when the Saxon
versions, still extant, were of standing use for the in-
struction and benefit both of clergy and people. These
evidences alone will prove the reception of this Creed
in England to have been as early as 950 or 990, or
the time of Athelstan, whose Latin Psalter, with the
Creed in it, remains to this day. The age of the manu-
script versions will warrant us thus far; but, possibly,
if those versions were thoroughly examined by a critic
in the Saxon, it might appear that the version, or ver-
sions, were some years older than the manuscripts. But
it may be worth the observing farther, that among seve-
ral other ancient Professions of Faith drawn up by our
Bishops of the Saxon times, there is one of Denebert,
Bishop of Worcester, presented to Archbishop Athelard
in the year 799, which contains in it a considerable
part of the Athanasian Creed’. From whence may be
concluded that this formulary was well known here
and well approved, among the learned at least, in those
times. Wherefore, upon the whole, and all circum-
stances considered, I may presume to name the year
800, or thereabout, for the reception of this Creed in
England. Further enquiries may perhaps carry it up
higher; but it cannot reasonably be brought lower,
and so there I leave it.

Traty.

880. We learn from Ratherius, above cited, that this
Creed was in common use in some parts of Italy, par-
ticularly in the diocese of Verona, in Low Lombardy,

v “Orthodoxam, Catholicam Apostolicam Fidem, sicut didici,

paucis exponam verbis, quia scriptum est, ‘Quicunque vult Salvus
esse,’”’ &c.—Profess. Deneberti Episc. Wigorn., in Text. Roff., p. 252.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 119

in his time; that is, about 960. He then speaks of it
as aman would do of a formulary that had been cus-
tomary amongst them, and of long standing. He ex-
horts his clergy to make themselves masters of the three
Creeds, Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian, without the
least intimation of the last of them being newly intro-
duced. I incline to think, that from the time that
Lombardy became a province of the French under
Charles the Great (about the year 774), this Creed
obtained there, by means of that prince, who had so
great a value for it, and whose custom it was to dis-
perse it abroad wherever he had any power or influ-
ence. He presented it to the Pope himself in 772; he
delivered it, about the same time, or before, to the
monks of Mount Olivet, in Jerusalem, of his founda-
tion; and it appears to have been with his consent, or
perhaps at his request, that Pope Adrian conveyed it to
Willehad, the first Bishop of Breme, in 787. These
circumstances make it highly probable that the same
Charles the Great introduced this Creed into Lombardy
soon after his conquest of it; and, indeed, nothing could
be more serviceable at that time in a country which
had so long before been corrupted with Arianism. Add
to this, that it appears highly probable that the Gal-
lican Psalter was introduced into the Churches of Italy
soon after Lombardy became a province under the kings
of France; and if their Psalter came in, no doubt but
their Creed, then a part of their Psalter, came in with
it. Cardinal Bona observes, and seems to wonder at it,
that the Gallican Psalter obtained in most parts of Italy
in the eleventh century*. He might, very probably,
= Bona, de Rebus Liturg., lib. ii. ο. 8, p. 506,

190 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

have set the date higher, as high perhaps, or very near,
as the conquest of Lombardy by Charlemagne. Thus
far, at least, we may reasonably judge, that those parts
which were more immediately subject to the kings of
France, Verona especially, one of the first cities taken,
received the Gullican Psalter sooner than the rest.
However, since I here go only upon probabilities, and
have no positive proof of the precise time when either
the Creed or the Psalter came in, and it might take up
some years to introduce them and settle them there
(new customs generally meeting with difficulties and
opposition at the first), these things considered, I am
content to suppose the year 880 for the reception of
this Creed in Italy, which is but eighty years higher
than Ratherius, and is above one hundred years from
the entire conquest of Lombardy by Charles the Great.
There may be some reason to suspect that this Creed
had been known in Italy, and received, at least in
some of the monasteries there, near two hundred years
before. The manuscript of Bobbio, in Langobardic
character, and written about the year 700, or sooner,
will afford a very strong presumption of it; and if we
consider how from the year 637, in the time of Rotharis,
one of the Lombard kings of Italy, there had been
a constant struggle between the Catholics and Arians,
and a succession of bishops on both sides kept up, in
almost every city of his dominions, for many years
together, I say, from these considerations, one might
reasonably presume that the Catholics had about that
time procured this Creed, together with Bachiarii Fides
and Gennadius’s Tract, out of the Gallican parts, to
arm themselves the better against the spreading heresy.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 191

But as this does not amount to a public reception of it,
nor is the fact so clear as not to be lable to dispute,
I pretend not to insist upon it.

Rome.

930. Rome is of distinct consideration from the other
parts of Italy, and was always more desirous of im-
posing her own offices upon other Churches, than of
receiving any from them. The Δ ηοχιο in the Con-
stantinopolitan Creed had been long admitted into all
the other Western Churches before Rome would accept
it, which was not (at least it does not appear that it
was) till the middle of the eleventh century, or about
1050. The custom of reciting the Nicene or Constan-
tinopolitan Creed in the Communion Service had pre-
pailed in Spain, France, and Germany for several
centuries, and was at length but hardly admitted at
Rome in the year 1014. It was thought civil enough
of the popes of Rome to allow the other Western
Churches to vary from the Roman customs in any
thing; and those other Churches could not enjoy that
liberty and privilege in quiet, without complying with
the Roman Offices in most things besides. The use of
the Athanasian Creed was one of those things wherein
they were beforehand with the Church of Rome, and
in which they were indulged, as was also the use of
the Gallican Psalter, which the Western Churches in
general were allowedY to have, while the Romans were

Υ ** Alexander IV. in sua Constitutione que est Sexta in Bullario
Ordinis Eremitarum Sancti Augustini, mandat Priori Generali et
reliquis Fratribus in Tuscia, ut recitent officium juxta morem
Romaue Kcclesie, excepto Psalteriv.”—Buna, de Kebus Liturg.,
lib. ii. ¢. 3, p. 506.

“εις quuque δ, Franciscus, ut testatur Frassenius (Disqu. Bib.,

122 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

tenacious of their own. But though the Romans re-
tained their own Psalter all the way down to the
middle of the sixteenth century, yet they had long
before borrowed this Creed from the Gallican, and re-
ceived it into their Offices. This is certain fact; but as
to the precise time when it was first done it may not
be easy to determine: it was, without all question,
before Thomas Aquinas’s days, who tells us (as above
cited) that this Creed was received by the authority of
the pope: I wish he had told us what pope. That it
was not received into the Roman Offices sv soon as the
year 809 may be probably argued from a case that then
happened, which has been hinted above. The Latin
monks of Mount Olivet (founded by Charles the Great)
in their Apologetical Letter to Pope Leo III. made the
best defence they were able of their own practice in
their public professing that the Holy Ghost proceeds
from the Son. They pleaded the open acknowledgment
of the same doctrine in Charles the Great’s own chapel,
and that the same doctrine had been taught them in
St. Gregory’s Homilies, and in the Rule of St. Benedict,
and in the Athanasian Creed, and in a Dialogue given
them by Pope Leo himself*. Now, had the Athanasian

ce. 6, § 1) illius Ordinis Frater, in Regula suorum precipit: Clerici
faciant Divinum Officium secundum Ordinem sancte Romane Ec-
clesiw, excepto Psalterio.”— Hodius, de Text. Bibl., lib. iii. ο, 2,
§ 4, p. 383. See also above, p. 44.

z *Benignissime Pater, dum essem Ego Leo, servus vester, ad
Sancta vestigia vestra, et ad pia vestigia Domni Karoli, piissimi
Imperatoris, Filiique vestri, audivimus in Capella ejus dici in
Symbolo Fidei, Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit. Et in Homilia 8.
Gregorii, quam nobis Filius vester Domnus Karolus Imperator
dedit, in parabola Octavarum Pascbhe, ubi dixit: Sed ejus missio
ipsa processio est, qui de Patre procedit et Filio. Et in Regula
S. Benedicti, quam nobis dedit Filius vester Domnus Karolus,.. .
et in Dialogo quem nobis vestra Sanctitas dare dignata est, simi-

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 123

Rome, those monks who were so particular in every
little circumstance pleadable in their favour, could not
have failed (especially upon their mentioning the Atha-
nasian Creed) to have pleaded a thing so notorious, and
which would have given the greatest countenance and
authority possible to them and their doctrine, and must
have been of the greatest weight and force with Pope
Leo, to whom they were writing, and whose protection
they were then seeking and humbly imploring. From
hence then one may reasonably infer that this Creed
was not received into the Roman Offices so early as the
year 809. Let us now enquire whether we can fix
upon any later time for its coming in.

Genebrard testifies that in the oldest Roman Bre-
viaries he could meet with, or hear of, this Creed
always made a part of the service*. But this is too
general, nor can we be certain how ancient those
oldest Breviaries were, nor whether they belonged to
the Roman Church strictly so called, or to other
Western Churches; and, indeed, I know not how we
can come to any certainty in this matter, unless it be
by examining into the Roman Psalters which have this
Creed in them. Whenever the Creed came into the
Roman Psalters we may justly conclude that at the
same time it came into the Roman Offices. We have in
our public library at Cambridge a Roman Psalter,
written for the use of the Church of Canterbury (as
liter dicit. Et in Fide 5, Athanasii eodem modo dicit.”—Epist.
Monach. Montis Oliveti; in Le Quien, Damasc. Dissert., p. 7.

a “Jn vetustissimis Romane Ecclesie ὡρολογίοις (hee nune vo-

camus vulgo Breviaria) sub Athanasii nomine ejus ad Primam reci-
tatio usu recepta est.” —Genebrard, p. 3.

124 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

our judicious Mr. Wanley reasonably conjectures °),
and about the time of the Conquest, or a little before,
suppose 1060. The Church of Canterbury more espe-
cially used the Roman Psalter, as hath been observed
above, and was in all things conformable, of old time,
to the Roman Offices. Now, if this Creed, which had
long before been introduced into the Gallican Psalters,
did at this time obtain in the Roman also, it is obvious
to conclude, that it at the same time made a part of the
Roman Offices, even at Rome itself, as well as Canter-
bury, since one was conformable to the other. This
argument may carry us up some years higher; for
there is another, an older Roman Psalter, taken notice
of above, which has this Creed in it, written about the
year 930, in the time of King Athelstan. It is said to
have belonged formerly to Archbishop Cranmer. Per-
haps this also might have been written for the use
of the Church of Canterbury: I know of no Church
amongst us which at that time used the Roman Psalter
but the Church of Canterbury. However, it is highly
improbable that any Church which complied so far
with Rome as to use the Roman Psalter should take
this Creed into that Psalter before such time as Rome
itself had done the same thing. Upon the strength of
this argument, though it be not demonstrative, but
probable only (such as the case will admit of, and such
as may very well pass till we can fix upon something
more certain), 1 say, upon the strength of this, I in-

υ «* Notandum vero in Litania extare hee verba: Ut Archiepis-
copum nostrum, et omnem congregationem illi commissam, in
sancta religione conservare digneris, te rogamus: quibus pene in-
ducor ut credam hune Cod. olim pertinuisse ad Ecclesiam Christi
Salvatoris Cantuarie.”’—Wanley, Catal., p. 152.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 125

cline to date the reception of this Creed at Rome from
the tenth century, and the beginning of it, about the
year 930. From this time forwards, I presume, the
Athanasian Creed has been honoured with a public
recital among the other sacred hymns and Church
Offices all over the West. The way has been to recite
it at the Prime, or first hour (one o’clock in the Latin
account, with us seven in the morning), every Lord’s
day°, and in some places every day*. But as the
custom of making it only a part of the Sunday Service
is the most ancient, so has it likewise been the most
general and prevailing, and is at this day the common
and constant usage of the Churches within the Roman
Communion. And let this suffice so far as concerns
the Western Churches.

Or THE GREEK AND ORIENTAL CHURCHES.

As to the Greek, or Oriental Churches, I reserved
this place for them, that I might not entirely omit
them. It has been questioned whether any of them
ever received this Creed at all. Vossius® seems to

¢ «Tie Dominico ad Primam recitetur.”—Hatt. Basil, A.p. 820.
See above, p. 27.

«* Per omnes Occidentis Ecclesias Dominicis semper diebus psal-
litur .... in cunctis Ecclesiis publice cani pracepta.”—Manuel
Calec. cont. Grec., lib. ii. c. 20; in Bibl. Max. PP. vol. xxvi. p. 414.

d « Fidem, ‘ Quicunque vult,’ quotidie ad Primam iterat. Honor.
August. Ad Primam dicunt quotidie Symbolum Athanasii.”—
Bona, de Carthusianis ; Divin. Psalm., ¢. 18, § 5, p. 897.

“Ad Primam.... quotidie subditur Symbolum Athanasii.”—
Bona, de Ambrosianis, ib., § 10, p. 900.

e “Nec qui nostra xtate Patriarcha Aléxandrinus, et Prases
Constantinopoleos fuit, pro germano illud Symbolum habuit. Sic
enim Meletius litteris suis Constantinopoli, anno 1597, ad Johannem
Douzam Nordovicem datis, et a filio Georgio Douza editis: ‘ Atha-
nasio falso adscriptum Symbolum, cum appendice illa Romanorum
Pontificum adulteratum, luce lucidius contestamur.’’’—Voss., de
Trib. Symb., Dissert. ii. ο. 20, p. 521.

126 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

have thought that they never have; and so also Com-
befisius‘; and Dr. Smith, in his Account of the Greek
Church, is positive, that, as to the Creed of Athanasius,
the Greeks are wholly strangers to it ®.

Nevertheless, I find some very considerable men of
a contrary persuasion, and not Romanists only, as Ba-
ronius, Spondanus”, Muratorius', Renaudot*, and others,
but Protestants also, as particularly Gundling, whose
words I have put into the margin’. We may observe,
however, that thus far is agreed on all hands, that this
Creed is not received in all the Greek Churches; and
if it is in any, yet it is there differently read in the
Article of Procession. It is not pretended that any of
the African Churches, Alexandrian, Nubian, or Ethio-
pian (which are most of them of the Jacobite or Euty-
chian sect) have received it. So far from it, that they
haye not (at least the Ethiopian or Abassine Churches

£ Combef., not. ad Calec., p. 297, et notatione 48 in vitam
Basilii Pseudo-Amphiloch.... ‘*Symbolum Athanasii Greci ut
ejus non recipiunt.”

& Smith, Account of the Greek Church, p. 196.

h Spondanus epitomizing the words of Baronius, ann. 340, § 4:
“Cum autem 6 Romane Ecclesiz antiquis monumentis, veluti eru-
deratum emersit in lucem, a Latinis omnibus, a Grecisque suscep-
tum est: necnon ab Ecclesia Serviana, Bulgarica, Russica, Mosco-
vitica, et aliis; quamvis ab eis dempta inde pars illa fuerit, qua
Spiritum Sanctum a Patre Filioque procedere expressum habetur.”

i “Re vera, non Heclesia tantum Constantinopolitana, sed Ser-
viana, Bulgarica, Russica, Moscovitica, aleque Ritui Greco ad-
dict, etsi Athanasiano Symbolo in Sacris Liturgiis utantur, hane
tamen particulam, et Filio, inde exclusere.”,— Murator., vol. ii.
p. 227.

κ “*Quod dicitur Dei Filius assumpsi-se Hominem, &., rectum
est, Symbolo quod Athauasii dicitur, et a Grecis Latinisque recipi-
tur, conforme.”—Renaud., Orient. Liturg., ad Nestorii Litur-
giam, τι. 2, in vol. ii. p. 648.

1 “*Mirari quis posset cur Greci Processionem Spiritus Sancti
a Filio negent, additionem ad Symbolum Nicenum tam egre
ferant, σαι tamen Symbolum Athanasii recipiant.’’ —Gundling,
p. 68.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 127

have not) so much as the Apostles’ Creed amongst
them, if we may believe Ludolphus™; so little are they
acquainted with the Latin forms or Confessions. Nor
is it pretended that the more Eastern Christians, be-
longing to the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem,
have any acquaintance with the Athanasian Creed ;
no, not the Maronites, though they formerly submitted
to the see of Rome, and are still supposed to hold com-
munion therewith, and to acknowledge the Pope for
their head. All that is pretended with respect to this
Creed is, that the Churches of Constantinople, Servia,
Bulgaria, Russia, and Muscovy, acknowledge it as
Athanasius’s, or make use of it in their common and
sacred Offices. And for proof of this it has been usual
to appeal to a passage of Cazanovius, a Polish knight,
in a letter of his to Calvin, which letter I have not
seen, but find quoted both by Genebrard® and Vossius®,
men of opposite principles, and therefore the more
safely to be relied on where they agree. But what
does Cazanovius confess? That the Greek, Servian,
Russian, and Muscovite Churches acknowledge the
Athanasian Creed as Athanasius’s, only curtailed (or,
as they would say, corrected) as to the point of the

™ Tiudolph., Histor. Athiop., lib. iii. ¢. 5, ὃ 19: ‘Symbolo
Fidei Catholicee Niceno communiter utuntur. . .. Illo quo nos uti-
mur, uti ceteri Orientales, carent: haud levi indicio Apostolos
illius autores non esse.”

a «Si Athanasii est, cnjusnam illud erit quod nune Grecorum,
Serviorum, Russorum, et Moscorum Ecclesiz sub ejusdem A thanasii
titulo retinent, ac pro genuino agnoscunt ?”—Cazanov. ad Calvin.
Epist. ; in Genebrard, p. 7.

° “Cazanovius Sarmata.... etsi muitum ei hoc Symbolum
displiceat, agnoscit tamen Athanasia!.um vocari, non in Latina so-
lum Ecclesia, sed etiam in Constantinopolitana, Serviana, Bulga-
rica, Moscovitica.”—Voss., de Symb., Diss. ii. c. i. p. 516.

128 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

Procession. A confession from a Socinian adversary in
this case is of some weight, and especially if it can be
enforced by any corroborating evidence. Let us see,
then, what may be further learned concerning the seve-
ral Churches here named, and the reception of this
Creed in them. I may take them one by one.

1. To begin with Muscovy, where the matter of fact
seems to be most fully attested of any. In the ac-
count given of the Lord Carlisle’s embassy from King
Charles 11. to the great Duke of Muscovy, in the year
1663", I meet with this passage relating to the Musco-
vites and their divine service :—‘‘The whole service
is performed by reading of certain Psalms, or chapters
in the Bible; sometimes the priest adds Athanasius’s
Creed, or sings certain hymns and St. Chrysostom’s
Homily.” In another treatise, intituled, ‘‘Of the
Ancient and Modern Religion of the Muscovites,”’ writ-
ten in French, and printed at Cologne, 1698, and since
translated into English, there is this account of the
Muscovites: that ‘‘they receive the Creed of the
Apostles, and that of Nice and Athanasius‘.” These
two testimonies are undoubtedly sufficient, so far as
concerns Muscovy. Now, the Muscovites received their
religion and their orders from the Patriarch of Constan-
tinople about the tenth century, or beginning of the
eleventh; and their receiving of this Creed will be
a presumptive argument in favour of its reception at
Constantinople also, if there be no evident reason
against it. That the Muscovites did not receive the

P Harris’s Collection of Travels, vol. ii. p. 181. See also the
Duke of Holstein’s Travels, ib., p. 36.

4 Harris’s Collection of Travels, vol. ii. p. 238. See also pp.
240, 241.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 129

Creed from the Latins, but from the Greeks, is very
plain, because their copies of the Creed are without
the Article of the Procession from the Son'. For they
pretend that the Latins have interpolated the Creed,
appealing to their own uncorrupted copies; and they
blame the Latins, farther, for inserting the /dioque
into the Nicene*. From what hath been said, it ap-
pears to be certain fact, that the Muscovites receive the
Athanasian Creed: how long they have had it, or how
far short of 700 years (reckoning from the time that
Christianity was received or restored amongst them),
I cannot say. I should observe, that the Muscovites
always perform their service in their own vulgar
tongue, as is allowed on all hands‘. Since, then, the
Athanasian Creed is a part of their Service, they must
have had a version of it in the Muscovite language,
which is a dialect of the Sclavonian. Wherefore this
also, after our proof of the thing, may now be added to
the other versions above mentioned.

2. Russia, as distinguished from Muscovy, must
mean Russia Minor, or the Black Russia, a province of
Poland. As many as there follow the Greek rites are

τ Tentzel., Judic, Erudit., p. 151.

5. See Harris, |. c. p. 240.

τ “Tn ceteris autem regionibus, videlicet in Servia, Mysia, Bos-
nia, Bulgaria, Russia Minori Regi Poloniz subdita, in Voihinia, Po-
dolia, et parte quadam Lituaniz, aliisque finitimis provinciis, ritu
Greco divinum peragitur officium, translatis Grecorum typicis in
Sclavonicam Linguam. Eosdem Grecos ritus, eadem lingua, ser-
vant Moscovite, quorum Regio Russia major, seu Roxolania nuncu-
patur,” &¢c.—Bona, de Divin. Psalmod., ¢. 18, 8 17, p. 911; ef.
Usher, Histor. Dogmat., p. 246.

** Armeui suo quoque nativo sermone dudum sacra celebrant, tum
qui Orthodoxam Fidem retinuerunt, tum Jacobite, ut Muscovite
seu Rutheni, Constantinopolitane sedi subjecti, Russico; et alii

quidam de quibus pauca scimus.” — Renaudot., Liturgy. Orient.,
vol. 1, Disserta. 6, p. xliii,

K

150 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

of the same account with the Muscovites before spoken
of; and therefore what has been said of the former,
with respect to the use of the Athanasian Creed, will
be applicable to these also, and so I need not be more
particular about them. The Patriarch of Muscovy or-
dains their Archbishop, who is therefore subject to him,
and follows the same rites and customs; and their
language is also a dialect of the Sclavonian, like the
other. |

3. Servia, now a large province of the Turkish em-
pire, part of Northern Turkey in Europe, first received
Christianity about the year 860, by the means of Cyril
and Methodius, who are said to have invented the Scla-
vonian letters, and to have translated the Scriptures
into the Sclavonian tongue. Cyril was a Greek, and
came from Constantinople; and Methodius was a Greek
too, both sent by the Greek Emperor to convert the
country, which therefore became instructed in the
Greek rites and religion. It is not improbable that
they should have the Athanasian Creed, as well as the
Muscovites and Russians, or perhaps before them, being
converted sooner; and they also must have received it
from the Greeks, and not from the Latins, because of
their varying in the Article of the Procession from the
Western Churches.

4. Bulgaria is likewise part of Turkey in Europe,
and has been so from the year 1396. Christianity was
planted there in the year 845. There were of old
great disputes between the two Bishops of Rome and
Constantinople upon the question to whose Patriarchate
the Bulgarians did of right belong. In conclusion,
about the year 870, the Greek Patriarch prevailed over

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 131

the Roman, by the interest of the then Emperor of
Constantinople. The Bulgarians of consequence fell to
the share of the Greek Church, and so have been edu-
cated in their rites and customs. Their language is
a dialect of the Sclavonian, in which they perform
their sacred offices; and, therefore, if they make use of
the Athanasian Creed, they must be supposed to have
it in their own vulgar tongue. I have no particular
evidence of their using it beyond what has been men-
ticned from Cazanovius and the Romish writers, which
yet seems to be sufficient, since it has been fully proved
that it is used in Muscovy and in Russia, to whom the
Bulgarians are neighbours, and with whom they con-
form in their other religious rites derived from the
same fountain, namely, the Constantinopolitan Greeks.

5. It remains, then, that we consider the fact in
respect of Constantinople itself, and the Greek Church
there ; for this also, as we have seen, has been named
with others as receiving the Athanasian Creed. Gene-
brard is positive in it, and gives us the very Creed
itself, which the Constantinopolitans, as he says, use
and recite". He wrote in the year 1569. The truth
of his report is very much doubted, because the form
which he exhibits acknowledges the Procession from
the Son, which the Constantinopolitans admit not; and
even those who, as before seen, assert or allow that
they receive this Creed, yet, at the same time, intimate
that it is not the entire Creed, but curtailed in that
Article. However, Genebrard might be in the right

π (ἐς Superius Symbolum Athanasii verbis aliquantulum im-
mutatis Constantinopolitani sic Grece legunt, et recitant.’’ —
Genebrard, p. 14.

132 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

as to the main thing, that the Constantinopolitans do
receive the Creed, though mistaken in the particular
form; or, possibly, some Latinizing Greeks at Constan-
tinople might have one form, and the rest another, and
thus all will be well. But let us enquire what further
evidence there is of this Creed’s haying been ever re-
ceived at Constantinople, and by the Greeks properly
so called. An argument thereof may be drawn from
the Greek copies that vary from the Latin in the
Article of Procession. For who should draw up and
curtail the Greek copies but the Greeks? and why
should they be at the trouble of correcting (as they will
call it) the Creed if they did not receive it? A second
argument may be drawn from the Creed’s being found
in the Horologia belonging to the Greeks; that is, in
their Breviaries (as we should call them), their Books
of Service for the Canonical Hours. How should the
Creed come in there, unless the Greeks received it into
their sacred Offices? As to the fact, Bishop Usher’s
copy found in such a Breviary, is a sufficient evidence ;
and it is plain from the copy itself that it was no
Latinizing Greek that made it or used it, since the
Procession from the Son is struck out. Further, this
Horologion belonged to a monk of Constantinople’,
which argues the reception of the Creed in that very
city; and as a token of their esteem of it, and value
for it, it is ascribed to the Nicene Council itself, which
all the Greeks receive and respect with the greatest

vy “Tn Thecare, Constantinopolitani Monachi, Greecorum Hymno-
ruin Horologio (a Ravio nostro ex Oriente hue advecto) Symbolum
hoc, eo quo post finem hujus Diatribe cernitur interpolatum
modo, Nicene Synodo adscriptum.... reperi,” &c.— Usher, de
Symb., preef., p. 2 (p. 1).

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 133

veneration. From hence, then, it is plain that the
Constantinopolitan Greeks (some of them at least) re-
ceive, or have received, this Creed, but with some alter-
ations proper to their peculiar tenets, in opposition to
the Latins. This fact, of the Constantinopolitans their
receiving this Creed, might be farther proved from the
Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus (in the year 1620,
published in 1667*), who admits the Creed, and looks
upon it as owing to a very particular Providence, that
the Greek copies (as he supposes) have been preserved
pure and entire, while the Latin ones have been cor-
rupted or interpolated. We find by Nicolaus Hydrun-
tinus, above cited, that such had been the general
persuasion of the Greeks, 500 years upwards, in rela-
tion to this Creed; not rejecting the Creed, but the
Latin interpolation only, as they take it to be.

Which when I consider, reflecting withal how the
Muscovites, Russians, &c. (who derived their religion
from the Greeks since the ninth century), have all come
into this Creed, and that no good account has been
given of such agreement, except it be that they all
received the same form when they first received their
religion ; I say, when I consider, and compare these
things together, it cannot but give me a suspicion that
this Creed had been received by the Greeks soon after
their first disputes with the Latins about the Proces-
sion, only they took care to strike out a part of it,
hoping to solve all by charging the Latins with inter-
polation; or, possibly, the Latin Patriarchs of Constan-

x ἐς Metrophanis Critopuli, Protosyngeli Constantinopolitani

‘Opodroyla τῆς ἀνατολικῆς ἐκκλησίας." ἘΝΠῸ. Helmstad., in 4to.
a Joann. Horueio; vid. cap. 1, p. 18, in Tentzel., p. 150.

194 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

tinople, between the years 1205 and 1260, might first
introduce the Creed there. They made use of it, as it
seems, then and there, in their Offices for the instruc-
tion of the Catechumens, as I learn from a Pontifical of
the Church of Constantinople about 500 years old, pub-
lished in part by Martene, who gives an account of it’,
and also an extract of the office relating to Catechu-
mens, which I have transcribed’ into the bottom of the
page. It is not improbable that the use of the Creed
at Constantinople might first come in such a way ; and
when it had prevailed there for forty or fifty years, the
returning Greeks might think it not improper to con-
tinue its use, only taking out the Article which con-
cerns the Procession.

However this be, one thing is certain, and, I think,
hath been proved abundantly, that the professed Greeks,
even under the Patriarch of Constantinople, have in
former times received, and still do receive, this Creed,
with such alterations or corrections as are proper
to their principles; and so I understand Dr. Covel?,

y “ Constantinopolitanze Ecclesiz Pontificale vetus, ad Latinos
ritus accommodatum, cujus caracter ad annos 500 accedit; scrip-
tum proinde eo tempore quo urbe a Gallis occupata, Latinis
ritibus serviebat. Ex Bibliotheca R. Rk. P. P. Predicatorum ma-
joris Couventus Parisiensis.”—Martene, Syllab. Ritual., prefixed
to vol. i.

z “ Interrogatio. Fides quid tibi preestat ἢ R. Vitam eternam,
Ait ei Sacerdos.... Fides autem est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate,
et Trinitatem in Unitate venereris, neque confundendo Personas,
neque Substantiam separando. Alia est enim Persona Patris, alia
Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti: sed horum trium una est, et non nisi
una Divinitas. Exeat ergo de te spiritus malignus,” &c.—Mar-
tene, de Antig. Eccl. Ritibus, ec. 1, art. 7, vol. i. pp. 44, 45.

4 Covel, Account of the Greek Church, pref., p. 9. To which
I may add a remark of the learnei Dr. Hickes, that ‘‘ this Creed,
though of an uncertain author, was, for its excellent composure,
received into the Greek and Latin Churches.”—Hickes, Serm.,
vol, ii. p. 235,

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 135

where he says, speaking of what is done amongst the
Greeks, that Athanasius’s Creed is owned as corrupted,
that is, with such corruptions as the Greeks have made
to it. Upon the whole, therefore, I cannot but close
in with those many learned Romanists who have at-
firmed, and still do affirm, that this Creed is received
both by Greeks and Latins. If the expression be
thought too general, since it is certain that the Creed
is rejected by innumerable Greeks, or, more properly,
Orientalists, in Asia and Africa, as the Cophtes, and
Nubians, and Abassines, and Maronites, Armenians,
Nestorians, &.; I say, if this be objected, it is to be
considered that the Romanists, under the name of
Greeks, mean generally the orthodox Greeks only, the
Melehite Greeks, or as many as hold communion with
the Patriarch of Constantinople, making no account
of the rest, as being by their heresies cut off from
the Church, and therefore of little or no considera-
tion”. Now, in this sense, it is excusable enough
to say, that the Creed is received both by Greeks and
Latins.

To sum up what hath been said of the reception of
this Creed. From the foregoing account it appears
that its reception has been both general and ancient ;
it hath been received by Greeks and Latins all over
Europe; and if it hath been little known among the

υ ἐς Attamen hoe evi sub Orientalis Ecclesie nomine diversarum
Nationum Orientalium Ecclesiz veniuut; que licet a Greca suam
coguoscant originem, propter tamen variarum heeresium colluviem
et alia preter mores Uhristianos pessime introducta a Greca lon-
gis-ime absunt. Greci enim illius religionis homines, tanquam
a se disjunctos, atque improbissimos, arcent, et detestantur.”—
ae Allat., de perpet. Consens. Heel. Occid. et Orient., lib. i. ὁ. 1,

iy 1a le

136 ANCIENT RECEPTION OF

African and Asian Churches, the like may be said of
the Apostles’ Creed, which hath not been admitted,
scarce known, in Africa, and but little in Asia*%, ex-
cept among the Armenians, who are said to receive
it’; so that, for generality of reception, the Athana-
sian Creed may vie with any, except the Nicene, or
Constantinopolitan, the only general Creed common to
all the Churches. As to the antiquity of its reception |
into the sacred Offices, this Creed has been received in
several countries, France, Germany, England, Italy,
and Rome itself, as soon, or sooner, than the Nicene,
which is a high commendation of it, as gaining ground
by its own intrinsic worth, and without the authority
of any general Council to enforce it. And there is this
thing further to be said for it, that while the Nicene
and Apostles’ Creeds have been growing up to their
present perfection in a course of years, or centuries of
years, and not completed till about the year 600, this
Creed was made and perfected at once, and is more
ancient, if considered as an entire form, than either
of the others, having received its full perfection while
the others wanted theirs. No considerable additions

e “T]lo quo nos utimur, uti ceeteri Orientales, carent (Habessini)
haud levi indicio, Apostolos illius autores non esse, quamvis
doctrines ratione Apostolicum recte vocetur.”’— Ludolph., Hist,
Aithiop., lib. ili. 6. ὃ, n. 19. Ἡμεῖς οὔτε ἔχομεν οὔτε εἴδομεν σύμ-
βολον τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων. Mare. Ephesius in Concil. Florent. ann.
1439, in Sylvest. Sgurop. Hist , sect. vi. c. 6, p. 150. Compare the
statement of Marcus Ephesius in the discussions at the Council of
Florence: “Non habemus (Symbolum A postolorum) ;” in Harduin.,
vol. ix. p. 842.

““Symbolum nec ab Apostolis, nee a Synodo ulla generali factum
est: Ad hac, nee in Greee. nec in Orient. ullis Ecclesiis obtinuit,
sed in Ecclesia Romana.”’—Suicer., Thesaur., vol. ii. p. 1098 ; sub
voce Symbolum.

4 Ricaut, Present State of the Greek Church, p. 409.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 197

or defalcations have been made to it (it has needed
none) since its first compiling till of late years, and in
the Greek Church only, which yet are so far from cor-
recting or amending the form, that they have rendered
it so much the less perfect, and the only way of restor-
ing it to its perfection is to restore it to what it was at
the first. But I pass on.

CHAPTER VII.

Or tHE TIME WHEN, AND PLACE WHERE, THE CREED
WAS COMPOSED.

Havine observed when and where this Creed hath
been received, we may now ascend higher, and con-
sider when and where it was made. Our enquiries
here will be in some measure dark and conjectural ;
strong probabilities will perhaps be as much as we can
reach to, which made it the more necessary for me to
begin, as I have, at the lower end, where things are
more plain and clear, in hopes to borrow some light to
conduct our searches into what remains still dark and
obscure. Whatever we have to advance in this chap-
ter must rest upon two things:—1. Upon external
testimony from ancient citations, manuscripts, com-
ments, versions, and the like, such as have been pre-
viously laid down. 2. Upon the internal characters of
the Creed.

1. To begin with the external evidence :—Our an-
cient testimonies, above recited, carry up the antiquity
of the Creed as high as the year 670, if the first of
them be admitted for genuine, as it reasonably may,
notwithstanding some objections. Our manuscripts,
now extant, will bring us no higher than 700; but
such as have been known to be extant may reach up to
660, or even 600. This must be thought very consi-
derable to as many as know how great a rarity a manu-
script of eleven hundred or of a thousand years date

THE ATHANASIAN CREED, &c. 139

is, and how few books or tracts there are that can boast
of manuscripts of such antiquity. The injuries of time,
of dust, and of moths, and, above all, the ravages of
war and destructions of fire, have robbed us of the
ancient monuments, and left us but very thin remains;
that a manuscript of the fourth century is a very great
rarity, of the fifth there are very few, and even of the
sixth not many. So that our want of manuscripts
beyond the sixth or seventh century is no argument
against the antiquity of the Creed, however certain an
argument may be drawn from those we have, so far
as they reach. But, beyond all this, we have a com-
ment of the sixth century, of the year 570, or there-
about, and this certain and unquestionable, which may
supersede all our disputes about the ancient testimo-
nies or manuscripts of more doubtful authority. Here,
then, we stand upon the foot of external evidence.
The Creed was, about the year 570, considerable
enough to be commented upon, like the Lord’s Prayer
and Apostles’ Creed, and together with them. Here is
certain evidence for the time specified, and presump-
tive for much greater antiquity; for who can imagine
that this Creed, or indeed any Creed, should grow into
such repute of a sudden, and not rather in a course of
years, and a long tract of time? Should we allow 100
or 150 years for it, though it would be conjecture only,
yet it would not be unreasonable or improbable conjec-
ture. But we will let this matter rest here, and pro-
ceed to our other marks of direction.

2. The internal characters of the Creed. The Creed
contains two principal doctrines; one of the Trinity,
and the other of the Incarnation. Possibly, from the

140 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

manner wherein these doctrines are there laid down, or
from the words whereby they are expressed, we may
be able to fix the true date of the Creed, or very nearly
at least ; certain, however, thus far, that it must be
somewhere above 570.

From the doctrine of the Incarnation, as expressed
in this Creed, we may be confident that it is not earlier
than the rise of the Apollinarian heresy, which ap-
peared first about the year 360, and grew to a head
about 370, or a little later. This Creed is so minute
and particular against those heretics (without naming
them, as it is not the way of the Creed to name any),
obviating every cavil, and precluding every evasion or
subterfuge, that one cannot suppose it to have been
written before the depths of that heresy were perfectly
seen into, and the whole secrets of the party disclosed,
which we have no reason to think could be before the
year 370, if so soon. This consideration alone is to me
a sufficient confutation of those who pretend that Atha-
nasius made this Creed either during his banishment at
Treves, which ended in the year 338, or during his
stay at Rome in the year 343, or that he presented it
to Pope Julius or Pope Liberius, who were both dead
before the year 367.

I must add, that Epiphanius* marks the very time
when the Creeds first began to be enlarged in opposi-
tion to the Apollinarian heresy; namely, the tenth
year of Valentinian and Valens, and the sixth of Gra-
tian (it should be seventh), which falls in with a.p. 378,
the very last year of Athanasius’s life, according to
those that place his death the latest; some say he died

® Epiphan., Ancoratus, c. 121, p. 123.

WHEN AND WHERE MADE. 141

a year or two sooner. If, therefore, he made this
Creed at all, it must be about that time; and, indeed,
were there no stronger objections against the antiquity
of the Creed, or against its being made by Athanasius,
than the common objection about the supposed con-
demnation of the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies,
I should scarce think it at all improbable that Athana-
sius should be the author, admitting that he lived
to the year 373; for Epiphanius’s larger Creed, made
about that time, appears to me as full and express
against both those heresies as the Athanasian can be
supposed to be, and in some respects more so; and yet
neither of those heresies were then in being, nor for
many years after. But there are many other reasons
which convince me that the Athanasian Creed must be
placed lower than this time. I take Epiphanius’s
larger Creed to have been the first that enlarged the
Article of the Incarnation, in opposition chiefly to
the Apollinarians ; and that Creed being drawn up, as
Epiphanius expressly testifies, by the joint advice of
all the orthodox Bishops and the whole Catholic Church,
became a kind of rule or model for most of the Creeds
that came atter, among which I reckon the Athanasian.

For, from the doctrine of the Trinity, as particularly
and minutely drawn out in that Creed, it is to me very
plain, that it must be some years later than the Creed
of Epiphanius, which will evidently appear to any man
who will be at the pains to compare the two Creeds
together.

One very observable particular is the manner of ex-
pressing the Unity by a singular adjective: Unus eter-
nus, Unus immensus, δ᾽. : “ one eternal, one incompreher

142 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

sible,” &c., and the condemning the expression of Z’res
aterni, Tres immensi, ὅθ. The Greeks never laid down
any such rule of expression, never observed or followed
it, but have sometimes run counter to it”, meaning,
indeed, the very same thing, but not so expressing it.
As to the Latins, we shall find none of them (at least,
I have not observed any) coming into that way of ex-
pression before Ambrose*® and Faustinus® (in the years
381 and 384), who are the first that use it, and that
but once, or very sparingly, not repeating and incul-
cating it, like the Athanasian Creed, nor leaving it
destitute of explication, But St. Austin, afterwards,
in his books of the Trinity, in the fifth especially, en-
larges in justification of this rule of expression, and is
full and copious upon it. His proofs, illustrations, ex-
ample, and authority gave new strength and credit to
this rule, which might then pass current, and become
fit to appear, without farther explication, in a Creed.
For this reason, principally, I incline to think that
this Creed was not made before St. Austin’s books of
the Trinity were public (which was not till 416), or
not before 420, or thereabout, to allow some time for

> Τριῶν ἀπείρων ἄπειρον cuupviay.—Greg. Nazianz. in Bapt.,
Orat. xl. ce. 47, p. 668.

¢ ἐς Kreo Sanctus Pater, Sanctus Filius, Sanctus et Spiritus: sed
non tres Sancti, quia unus est Deus Sanctus, unus est Dominus.
Una est etenim vera Sanctitas, sicut una est vera Divinitas, una
illa vera Sanctitas naturalis.”—Ambros., de Sp. S., lib. 111. e. 16,
vol. ii. p. 688.

4 ἐς Sed ne duos omnipotentes intelligas, precavendum est: licet
enim et Pater sit omnipotens, et Filius, tamen unus est omni-
potens, sicut et unus est Deus: quia Patris et Filii eadem Omni-
potentia est, sicut et eadem Deitas,” &c. .. . ““ Ostenditur Unitas
Divinitatis in Patre et Filio, sicut et Omnipotentia, et quicquid
omnino Divine Substantie est; hoc solo differens a Patre Filius,

quod ille Pater est, et Hic Filius.” — Faustin., de Trinit., ¢. 3
(pp. 123, 124); in Bibl. Max. PP., vol. v. p. 646.

WHEN AND WHERE MADE. 143

his works to be read, considered, approved, and to gain
a general esteem. If it be said that St. Austin might
as well copy from this Creed as the Creed from him,
I say, No, for the reason is different. Creeds and other
the like formularies which are to be put into every
one’s hands, and spread round about, ought not to con-
tain anything till it has been maturely weighed, long
considered, and fully explained, as well as proved, and
generally acknowledged by the Churches of Christ. It
is, therefore, much more reasonable to believe that
St. Austin’s writings should go first, and a general ap-
probation of them in that particular; and then the
Creed might conveniently follow, the way being now
opened for 10“.

I may observe the like of another Article of the
Athanasian Creed, namely, the Procession from the Son
—a doctrine entertained, indeed, both by Greeks and
Latins (as may appear by the testimonies commonly
cited for that purpose), and expressed frequently in
sense, though rarely in terms, but such as came not to
be much inculcated or insisted upon till St. Austin un-
dertook to assert and clear it, and to render it less
liable to any dispute hereafter. For which reason the
modern Greeks have looked upon him, in a manner, as
the father of that doctrine, being at least the principal

ς Combefis, speaking to this point, seemed inclinable to suppose
that St. Austin bad borrowed from the Creed ; but correcting him-
self afterwards, he supposes rather that the Creed borrowed irom
him. His words are these :—

“‘ jus Symboli, seu Formule Fidei, antiquitatem produnt illi
ejus versiculi quos totidem verbis habet August. in Libris de T'rini-
tate et alibi, quos non aliunde desumpsisse videatur quam ex eo
Symbolo... Quanquam nihil vetat dicere ipsum potius Symboli

Auctorem ex Augustino, aliisque P. P. sua consarcinasse.’’—Com-
Ξ ᾽ 1
befis, not. in Calec. ; Auctur., vol. ii, p. 296.

144 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

man that brought it into vogue, however weakly they
may pretend that he invented it. Thus far is certain,
that his elaborate arguments and solid proofs from
Scripture of the truth and of the importance of the doc-
trine made it pass the more readily, and gave it credit
and authority enough to have a place in a standing
Creed or Confession, which is to me another argument
of the Creed’s being made after St. Austin’s writings
were well known in the world, in that place, at least,
where the Creed was made. From the premises, then,
I presume to infer, that the Athanasian Creed is not
earlier than the year 420.

Τ will next endeavour to shew, that it cannot rea-
sonably be set lower than the Eutychian times, not
later than the Council of Chalcedon, or than the year
451; and this also I shall attempt from the internal
characters of the Creed in like manner as above.

1. There is not a word in the Creed directly and
plainly expressing two natures in Christ, or excluding
one nature, which critical terms against the error of
Eutyches are very rarely or never omitted in the Creeds
drawn up in the Eutychian times, or the times imme-
diately following. ’Tis true, there is in the Athana-
sian Creed what may be sufficient to obviate or preclude
the Eutychian heresy, as there is also in the larger
Creed of Epiphanius, a.p. 3878, and in the works of
Nazianzen and Ambrose, about the year 380, and in
Pelagius’s Creed, A.p. 417, and in the writings of Aus-
tin and Vincentius of Lerins, both before the year 435,
many years before Eutyches. The strongest expres-
sion of the Creed against the Eutychians, and which
has been most frequently urged in this case, is, Unus

WHEN AND WHERE MADE. 145

omnino, non confusione substantia, sed unitate persone:
““One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by
unity of person:” which yet is used by Vincentius‘,
and by Austin’, too, almost in terms. And if this be
‘no reason for making either of those authors, or the
Tracts ascribed to them, later than Eutyches, why shall
the like expression be of any force in respect to the
Athanasian Creed? There is nothing in the Creed but
what was common and ordinary in Catholic writers
before the Eutychian times; but there are wanting
those critical, distinguishing terms of two natures, or
one nature, necessary to be inserted in the Creeds after
these times, and never, or very rarely, omitted ; which
is one reason, and a very considerable one, for setting
the date of the Creed higher than 451.

2. Another argument of the same thing, near akin
to the former, is, that this Creed makes no mention of
Christ being consubstantial with us in one nature, as
He is consubstantial with the Father in another:
a tenet expressly held by some of the ecclesiastical
writers before Eutyches’ time, but seldom or never
omitted in the Creeds or Confessions about that time,
or after. To be convinced of the truth both of this
and of the preceding Article, one need but look into
the Creeds and Formularies of those times; namely,
into that of Turribius of Spain in 447, of Flavian of
Constantinople, as also of Pope Leo in 449, of the
Chalcedon Council in 451, of Pope Felix III. in 485,

£ “Unus autem, non... Divinitatis et Humanitatis confusione,
sed... unitate persone.”’—Vincent. Lerin., c. 19, p. 46 (p. 58).

g “Tdem Deus qui Homo et qui Deus, idem Homo; non confu-
sione nature, sed unitate persone.’—August., Serm. 186, Nat.
Dom. iii., in vol. v. p. 885.

L

146 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

and Anastasius II. in 496, and of the Church of Alex-
andria in the same year; as also into those of Pope
Hormisdas, and the Churches of Syria, and Fulgentius,
and the Emperor Justinian, and Pope John II., and
Pope Pelagius I., within the sixth century. In all
which we shall find either express denial of one nature,
or express affirming of two natures, or the doctrine of
Christ’s consubstantiality with us, or all three toge-
ther, though they are all omitted in the Athanasian
Creed. This is to me a second reason for setting our
Creed higher than the Eutychian times.

8. I may argue this point farther from a passage of
the Athanasian Creed, running thus: ‘‘One, not by
conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of
the manhood into God.’ This would not, I conceive,
have run in these words, or in this manner, in the Euty-
chian times. For though the Eutychians were sometimes
(as well as the Apollinarians often) charged with the
doctrine of a “ conversion of the Godhead into flesh,” yet
nothing is more certain than that the generality of them
absolutely disowned and detested any such tenet, teach-
ing rather “a conversion of the manhood into God,” just
the reverse. And, by the way, I would here offer it
to the learned reader to consider, whether we may not
from hence give a probable account of a very noted
variation observable in many of the most ancient copies
of this Creed, which run thus: Unus autem, non con-
versione Divinitatis in carne, sed assumptione Humanita-
tis in Deo: where there is carne tor carnem, and Deo
for Deum. <A slight alteration in the words, but a very
great one in the sense. A change of the Godhead in
the flesh the Eutychians admitted, by making the two

WHEN AND WHERE MADE. 147

natures become one, though they allowed not a change
into flesh: so that by this little alteration of carne for
carnem, the Creed would strike more directly at the
Eutychian principles. Then, again, as to Dewm, if that
reading was to stand, the Creed, instead of confuting
the Eutychians, would seem rather to favour them ; for
they taught that the manhood was assumed into God,
and that in so literal and strict a sense as really to
become God, or to be absorbed and lost in the Divine
nature, both natures becoming one Divine nature.
Such'a construction might the words of the Creed be
liable to. But put Deo for Dewm, and it is entirely de
feated; for then the sense is not that the manhood is
assumed into God, but that God assumed the human
nature ; which is true, and not lable to any such mis-
construction as the other. However this be, as to the
variation of the copies, and the reason here assigned
for it (which I offer only as a probable conjecture to be
further enquired into), yet this is certain, that these
words of the Creed, according to the common copies,
are not so cautiously or accurately chosen as they
might, or would have been, had the Creed been drawn
up after the Eutychian times.

4, A fourth argument may be drawn from the simi-
litude in the Creed, running thus: ‘‘ As the reasonable
soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one
Christ.” This familiar and easy comparison was much
made use of by the Catholics, down from the Apollina-
rian times to the time of Eutyches: by Nazianzen,
Austin, Vincentius, Claudianus Mamertus, and others.
But no sooner did the Eutychians wrest the comparison
to their own sense, pleading for one nature in Christ,

148 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

like as soul and body make one nature in man, but the
Catholics grew strangely averse to the similitude, and
rarely made use of it; or when they did, it was either
to dispute against it and condemn it, or else to guard
and qualify it with proper cautions and restrictions.
Wherefore it is by no means probable that this simili-
tude would have been inserted at such a time in
a Catholic Creed, and there left without guard or cau-
tion for the Eutychians to make an ill use of. This
fourth argument I take from the learned and acute Le
Quien, whose words may be seen in the margin®, And
may we not from hence give a probable guess at the
reason why the ancient manuscript of Treves, and the
Colbertine copied from it, have entirely omitted this
similitude, throwing in a few words, both before and
after, to salve the breach, in some measure, and to pre-
serve a connexion: which shews that it was no casual
omission, but made with design. But I pass on.
These reasons convince me that the Creed was not
made so late as the Council of Chalcedon, but before
the year 451. It cannot therefore be ascribed to Vigi-
lius Tapsensis in the year 484; not to mention that
the phraseology of it agrees not with that writer’s
usual manner of expression, as Le Quien hath ob-

h “Quod quidem simile, quo Theologus etiam, aliique Patres
Apollinaristas confutarant, tanti posthac non fecerunt insequentis
seu quinti seeculi desinentis doctores, ut illud in Expositione Fidei
insererent ; cum Monophysit, Severo przesertim duce, eo vehe-
mentius contra Catholicos pugnarent, ut unam in Christo naturam
esse ex Deitate et Humanitate compositam evincerent. Quinimo
omnes ingenii vires explicare coacti sunt, ut varias discrepantias
reperirent inter unionem Deitatis cum Humanitate in Christo, et
unionem anime cum corpore in homine.”—Le Quien, Dissert.
Damasc., p. 10; compare Petav., de Incarn., lib. iii. 6. 9, &c.,
in Dogm. Theol., vol. v. p. 135, &e.

WHEN AND WHERE MADE. 149

servedi, Besides that the principal reasons on which
Quesnel rested his opinion in regard to that author are
now found to have been grounded on a false presump-
tion of certain works being Vigilius’s which are none
of hisk. And I may add, that to me there does not
appear in Vigilius’s pieces anything of that strength,
closeness, and acuteness, which we find in the Athana-
sian Creed.

But I proceed to shew that this Creed is earlier than
even the times of Nestorius, or the Ephesine Council of
the year 431. It is certain that this Creed does not
condemn the Nestorian heresy in such full, direct, eri-
tical terms as the Catholics found to be necessary
against the wiles and subtleties of those men. There
is not a word of the Mother of God, or of one Son only,
in opposition to two sons, or of God’s being born, suf-
fering, dying: which kind of expressions the Creeds
are full of after Nestorius’s times, and after the Council
of Ephesus, to guard the more certainly against equivo-
cations, and to express the Catholic doctrine in strong
terms, such as could not be eluded. As to what the
Athanasian Creed really does express, and is conceived
to strike directly at the Nestorian heresy, it is demon-
stration that the words are not more full or expressive

i «Sunt qui suspicentur expositionem istam Fidei fuisse concin-
natam a Vigilio Tapsensi, qui scripsisse existimatur libros tres con-
tra Varimadum Arianum: sed ab illorum opinione me deterruit
versus iste, Unus omnino, non confusione substantiz, sed unitate
persone. Nam Vigilius in libris quinque contra Eutychem nuse
quam unitatem persone dicit, sed passim, et frequentissime unio-
nem persone... Cumque varie supersint hodie Vigilii Tapsensis
Confessiones Fidei de Trinitate et Incarnatione, nulla earum simili-
tudo et convenientia cum Symbolo Athanasiano, quoad stylum
animadvertitur.”—Le Quien, Dissert. Damasc., p. 9.

k Vid Montf., Diatrib., p. 724; Antelm., Disqwis., pp. 33, 34.

180 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

than may be found in elder Creeds, and in the Fathers
that wrote against the Apollinarians and others, before
ever Nestorius was heard of', I know not how to
give my reader a clear and just idea of this whole mat-
ter, but by setting down in chronological order the
doctrine of the Incarnation, as expressed in Catholic
writings from the Apollinarian times down to the
Nestorian, from the year 373 to the year 431. One
thing only I would remark beforehand, to make the
following aecount the clearer, that the Apollinarians
really held a doctrine very near akin to that which
afterwards was called Eutychian, and they maliciously
charged the Catholics with that very doctrine, which
was afterwards called Nestorian; so that the Catholics,
in their charge upon the Apollinarians, condemned the
Eutychian doctrine long before Eutyches; and, in their
defence of themselves, they also condemned the Nesto-
rian tenets before Nestorius. I shall first justify the
truth of this remark in both its parts, and then shall
proceed farther to what I intend.

As to the first part, that the Apollinarians held
a doctrine very near akin to that which was after-
wards called Eutychian, it is a thing so well known,
that I need not cite many testimonies for it. It was
one of the commonest charges against the Eutychians,
that they had revived the heresy of the Apollina-

1 Le Quien is beforehand with me in the observation, whose
words I may here cite :—

“ Nec cuiquam negotium facessat, quod Nestorii et Eutychis
hereses ea (formula) prius pessundatie essent, quam ipsarum auc-
tores emergerent. Alibi siquidem ostensum fuit SS. Patres, qui
contra Apollinarium calamum strinxerant, disertissimis etiam
verbis amborum impietates proscripsisse.”—Le Quien, Dissert.
Damase., p. 9.

WHEN AND WHERE MADE, 151

rians™ in some considerable branches of it: Petavius
briefly shews what those branches were *.

As to the other part of my remark, that the Apol-
linarians charged the Catholics with the opposite ex-
treme, afterward called Nestorian, that has not been
so much observed, but is no less true than the other ;
as may abundantly appear from the testimonies in the
margin 9, besides others that will occur as we pass along.
This also is observed by Le Quien in his Notes to
Damascen ?; whereupon he rightly infers, that it will
be a false conclusion to argue that such or such writings
must belong to the Nestorian times, only because of
their treating of an unity of person in Christ.

m “‘Butyches . . . per impios veterum hereticorum volutatus
errores, tertium Apollinaris dogma delegit; ut negata humane
carnis atque anime veritate, totum Dominum nostrum Jesum
Christum unius asserat esse nature, tanquam verbi Deitas ipsa
se in carnem animamque converterit.”—Leon. Epist. 97, p. 633;
οἵ, Ep. 134, p. 699.

o “Sane cum et multiplex, et ab autore suo interpolata sepius
Apollinaris heresis fuerit, ut capite sexto docuimus ; ea parte cum
isto consensit Eutyches, qua carnem Christi non ex utero sumptam
B. Virginis sed e Cxlo delapsam Apollinaris credidit: tum qua-
tenus uterque unicam naturam asseveravit, et utriusque permistam
ac confusam substantiam.”—Petav., de Jncarn., lib. i. c. 153 in
Dogmat. Theol., vol. v. p. 37.

° *Neque vero alium Jesum Christum, alium verbum dicimus,
ut nova heresis calumniatur, sed eundem, et ante secula, et post
secula, et ante mundum et post Mariam ; imo. ex Maria magnum
Deum appellamus.”—Hieronym., in Tit., c. 3, vol. iv. p. 431.

**Qui Apollinarii dogmata defendunt, per querimoniam quam
adversus nos faciunt sua confirmare conantur, carnale verbum et
dominum szeculorum, hominis Filium immortalem Filii Deitatem
construentes. Profernnt enim quod aliqui quasi Ecclesiz Catholics
existentes, duos colunt Filios in dogmate ; unum quidem secundum
naturam, alterum autem secundum adoptionem postea acquisitam ;
nescio a quo talia audientes...nondum enim novi eum qui hee
subloquitur.”—Gregor. Nyssen., quoted in Harduin, vol. iii. p. 106,
Concil. ν, Collat. 6. Cf. Ambros., de Incarn. Sacram., c. 7, p. 721;
Athanas., Epist. ad Epictet., p. 454 (p. 497).

Ρ ** Ad Nestoriana tempora revocandi non sunt omnes libri qui-
bus de una Christi persona disputandum est.”—Le Quien, Wot. in
Damascen. de Her., vol. i. p. 95.

152 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

These things premised, I now proceed to lay down
the doctrine of the Incarnation as expressed in Catholic
writers from the year 373, down to the year 431,
inclusive.

I begin with the larger Creed of Epiphanius, which
sets forth the Incarnation in the following terms :—

373. ‘*The Word was made flesh, not by under-
going any change, nor by converting his Godhead into
manhood, but by co-uniting it into his one holy per-
fection and Godhead. For there is one Lord Jesus
Christ, and not two; the same He is God, the same
He Lord, the same He King ‘.” ς

Here we may observe that the Creed guards, just as
the Athanasian does, against the two extremes: against
the Apollinarian notion of the Godhead being con-
verted into flesh, and against the Apollinarian calumny
that the Catholics made two Christs instead of one.

380. Gregory Nazianzen, not long after, expresses
himself in terms to the like effect :—‘‘ We divide not
the man from the Godhead, but we make them one and
the same (person) ....If any one imagines Mary not
to be the mother of God, he has no part with God... .
If any man introduces two Sons, one of God and the
Father, and a second of the Virgin Mother, and not
one and the same Him, let him forfeit the adoption
of sons promised to true believers: for God and man

1 ‘O yap λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο, οὐ τροπὴν ὑποστὰς, οὐδὲ μετα-
βαλὼν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θεότητα εἰς ἀνθρωπότητα" εἰς μίαν συνενώσαντα
ἑαυτοῦ ἁγίαν τελειότητά τε καὶ θεότητα᾽ εἷς γάρ ἐστιν Κύριος
Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ οὐ δύο, ὃ αὐτὸς Θεὸς, ὁ αὐτὸς Κύριος, ὃ αὐτὸς
BaoiAevs.—Epiph., Ancoratus, ο. 21, p. 124. This Creed is given
at length by Dr. Heurtley, in De Fide et Symbolo, pp. 13—15.

WHEN AND WHERE MADE. 1538

are indeed two natures, like as soul and body; but
they are not two Sons, nor (two) Gods *.”

Here, again, we find the Nestorian tenets very fully
obviated, while Nazianzen is answering the Apollinarian
calumny against the Catholics: and at the same time,
the Eutychian heresy (afterwards so called) is as plainly
precluded, while Nazianzen is laying down the Church’s
faith in two natures against the Apollinarians who
made but one.

382. Ambrose, in like manner, confutes the Apol-
linarians, without naming them :—‘‘ We ought also to
condemn those, who, in another extreme, teach not one
and the same Son of God, but that He who is begotten
of God the Father, is one, and he that is generated of
the Virgin, another: when the Evangelist saith that
the Word was made flesh, to instruct us that there is
but one Lord Jesus, not two... . There are others risen
up who pretend that our Lord’s flesh and Godhead
are both of one nature. ... And when they say that the
Word was converted into flesh, hairs, blood, and bones,
and changed from its own nature, after such a pre-
tended change of the Divine nature, they may take the
handle to wrest anything to the weakness of the God-
head which belongs to the infirmity of the flesh *.”

τ Οὐδὲ yap τὸν ἄνθρωπον χωρίζομεν τῆς θεότητος, ἀλλ᾽ Eva
καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν δογματίζομεν. ... εἴ τις οὐ θεοτόκον τὴν Μαρίαν
ὑπολαμβάνει, χωρὶς ἐστὶ τῆς θεότητος.. .. εἴ τις εἰσάγει δύο υἱοὺς
ἕνα μὲν τὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, δεύτερον δὲ τὸν ἐκ τῆς μητρὺς,
ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν, καὶ τῆς υἱοθεσίας ἐκπέσοι τῆς ἐπηγ-
γελμένης τοῖς ὀρθῶς πιστεύουσι. Φύσεις μὲν γὰρ δύο Θεὸς καὶ ἄν-
θρωπος, ἐπεὶ καὶ ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα, υἱοὶ δὲ οὐ δύο, οὐδὲ θεοὶ.---
Gregor. Nazianz., Orat. 51, Ep. i. ad Cledon., p. 738.

s ἐς Et illos condemnare debemus qui adversa erroris linea, non
unum eundemque Filium Dei dicunt, sed alium esse qui ex Deo

1δ4 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

Ambrose seems here to intimate as if there were
really some at that time who had run into that very
error which the Apollinarians charged upon the Ca-
tholics, and which was afterwards called Nestorian.
However that be, he condemns it in the name of
the Catholics; as he condemns also the Apollinarian
extreme, which afterwards became Eutychian. There
is another passage of Ambrose cited by Theodoret,
seemingly so full and express against the Nestorian
and Entychian heresies, that one can hardly be per-
suaded to think it really Ambrose’s. But, on the other
hand, it appears to be so well attested, that the late
learned editor of Ambrose could not but yield to place
it among his genuine Works, vol. ii. p. 729.

417. There is a Creed of Pelagius (as learned men
now agree) inserted among the works both of Jeromet
and Austin". It was made several years before the
Nestorian controversy. Our learned Dr. Wall has trans-
lated it into English’, subjoining some excellent notes
of his own to it. I shall transcribe as mtch as is to
our purpose :—‘‘ We do in such a manner hold that
there is in Christ one person of the Son, as that we say
there are in Him two perfect and entire substances
Patre natus sit, alium qui sit generatus ex virgine ; cum Evange-
lista dicat quia verbum caro factum est, ut unum Dominum Jesum
non duos crederes... emergunt alii qui carnem Domini dicant et
divinitatem unius esse nature .. . Deinde, cum isti dicant quia ver-
bum in carnem, capillos, sanguinem, et ossa conversum est, et a na-
tura propria mutatum est, datur illis locus ut infirmitatem car-
nis ad infirmitatem divinitatis, quadam facta divine naturee mu-
tatione, detorqueant.”—Ambros., de Incarn. Sacram., ¢. 6, vol. ii.
pp. 714, 715.

t Hieronym., vol. v. p. 123: where it is called Symbolum Damasi.

α Augustin., Serm. 236, vol. v. App., p. 388.

v Wall’s History of Inf. Bapt., part i. c. 19; vol. i. p. 406
(p. 200).

»

WHEN AND WHERE MADE. 155

--- α

(or natures), viz., of the Godhead, and of the manhood
which consists of soul and body... .Wedo abhor....
the blasphemy of those who go about by a new inter-
pretation to maintain that since the time of His taking
flesh, all things pertaining to the Divine nature did pass
‘into the man [or manhood], and so also that all things
belonging to the human nature were transferred into
God [| or the Divine nature]; from whence would follow
(a thing no heresy ever offered to affirm) that both sub-
stances [or natures], viz., of the Divinity and huma-
nity, would by this confusion seem to be extinguished,
and to lose their proper state, and be changed into
another thing. So that they who own in the Son an
imperfect God and an imperfect man, are to be ac-
counted not to hold truly either God or man.”

Dr. Wall hereupon judiciously remarks, that there
wanted only the accuracy of speaking, which Pelagius
had here used, to clear and settle the dispute between
the Nestorians and Eutychians. I would remark far-
ther, that if Pelagius’s Creed, in the year 417, had
so plainly obviated both the Nestorian and Eutychian
heresy before Nestorius or Eutyches was known, it may
easily be conceived that the Athanasian Creed might do
the same thing at or about the same time.

422, I might next shew how St. Austin likewise has
expressed himself in as strong terms against both those
heresies, as the Athanasian Creed has done; but, be-
cause 1 shall have another occasion to cite the passages,
where I draw out a select number of expressions pa-
rallel to those of the Creed, I may spare myself the
trouble of doing it here.

426. I might go on to observe what passed in the

156 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

case of Leporius, a man of the same principles, in the
main, with Nestorius, but some years before him. His
recantation treatise (Lzbellus Satisfactionis), supposed
to be drawn up by St. Austin in the year 426, would
furnish me with many full and strong expressions
against the Nestorian principles beyond any to be met
with in the Athanasian Creed; so that there is no
just argument to be drawn from any expressions in
that Creed for setting it so low as the Nestorian times.

431. I shall conclude this account with the recital
of a Creed made about the same time, or in the same
year, that the Council of Ephesus was held against
Nestorius. It is the Creed of John, Patriarch of An-
tioch, approved by Cyril of Alexandria, and thought
sufficient to wipe off all suspicion of Nestorianism from
the author of it. It runs thus: “ We confess, then,
that Jesus Christ our Lord, the only-begotten Son of
God, is perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable
soul and body; born of the Father before the worlds,
as touching his Godhead; the same also in the end of
days, for us and for our salvation, (born) of the Virgin
Mary, as touching His manhood, consubstantial with
us according to His manhood. But there was an union
made of two natures, on which account we profess one
Christ, one Lord, one Son. Conformable to this sense
of an union without confusion, we acknowledge the
Holy Virgin as Mother of God, because that God the
Word was incarnate and made man, and from the very
conception united to Himself a temple which He had
taken of her *.”

x Ὁμολογοῦμεν τοιγαροῦν τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν
υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, Θεὸν τέλειον καὶ ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἐκ

WHEN AND WHERE MADE. 157

Here we may observe several expressions nearly re-
sembling those of the Athansian Creed; but withal
several others more particular and explicit against the
Nestorian principles than that Creed is: one Son, and
Him consubstantial with us, in respect of his man-
hood; the Virgin, Mother of God, and the like. Such
is the constant strain and tenor of the Creeds, and
Confessions, and Catholic writings, treating of the In-
carnation, at this time and after: as might be shewn
at large from Cassian about 431, and Vincentius in
the year 434, and from Flavian, and Pope Leo I., and
others before the Council of Chalcedon. We have
therefore very great reason to believe, that the Athana-
sian Creed was drawn up either before the Nestorian
controversy, had made much noise in the world, or, at
least, before the compiler had notice of it. The sum,
then, of my argument is this: there is nothing in the
Athanasian Creed but what might have been said, and
had been said, by Catholic writers before the time of
Nestorius ; but the Creed wants many of those parti-
cular and critical expressions which came into use
after that time; therefore, since the internal characters
of the Creed suit exactly with the Apollinarian times,
and not with the Nestorian, it ought to be placed
ψυχῆς λογικῆς καὶ σώματος, πρὸ αἰώνων μὲν ex τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέν-
τα κατὰ τὴν θεύτητα, ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων δὲ τῶν ἡμερῶν τὸν αὐτὸν δι’ ἡμᾶς
καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου κατὰ τὴν
ἀνθρωπότητα: ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν αὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ
ὁμοούσιον ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, δύο γὰρ φύσεων ἕνωσις
γέγονε" διὸ καὶ ἕνα Χριστὸν, ἕνα υἱὸν, ἕνα Κύριον ὁμολογοῦμεν.
κατὰ ταύτην τῆς ἀσυγχύτου ἑνώσεως ἔννοιαν, ὁμολογοῦμεν τὴν
ἁγίαν παρθένον θεοτόκον, διὰ τὸ τὸν Θεὸν λόγον σαρκωθῆναι, καὶ
ἐνανθρωπῆσαι, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς συλλήψεως ἑνῶσαι ἑαυτῷ τὸν ἐξ

αὐτῆς ληφθέντα vady.—Johan. Antioch., in Routh’s Opuse., vol. ii.
p. 206.

158 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

somewhere between Apollinarius and Nestorius, not
lower than 430 or 431 at the utmost. And it is some
confirmation of what hath been said, that Venantius
Fortunatus, who lived in the Eutychian times, and
commented upon this Creed about the year 570, as
before observed, yet in his comment takes not the least
notice of any part of this Creed being opposed to the
errors of Nestorius or Eutyches, but only to those elder
heresies of Sabellius, Arius, and Apollinarius, whom
he specially makes mention of. I persuade myself,
therefore, that this Creed ought not to be placed lower
than 430, or thereabout; and I have before shewn
why it should not be set higher than 420; so that now
we have brought it within the compass of ten years,
where we may let it rest awhile till we consider farther
what place or country the Creed was most probably
composed in, which may help us to settle the time of
its date within somewhat stricter and narrower limits
than before.

There is great reason to believe that this Creed was
made in Gaul. The considerations which persuade us
thereto are these following :—1. Its early reception in
the Gallican Church, so far as appears, before all other
Churches. 2. The great esteem and regard anciently
paid to it by the Gallican Councils and Bishops’.
3. The Creed’s being first admitted into the Gallican
Psalter, and first received in those countries where that
Psalter was received, as in Spain, Germany, and Eng-

y “*Tanti namque apud Gallos Symbolum hoc fuit ut una cum
Symbolo Apostolorum memorize commendari Presbyteris precipiat
Hinemarus idem in capitulis, Clericis omnibus Synodus Augusto-

dunensis.”—Sirmond., on Theodulph. de Sp. S., vol. ii. p. 978; ef.
Antelm., p. 30.

WHEN AND WHERE MADE. 159

land. As the Gallican Churches delivered their Psalter
to other Churches, so is it reasonable to believe that
the Creed was received from them likewise. 4. The
oldest version we hear of is Gallican, in the time of
Hinemar. 5. The oldest authors that make mention
of it are likewise Gallican ; for proof of which I refer
to the ancient testimonies above. 6. The first that
cite the words of it (as it seems) are likewise Gallican.
I will here mention two: Avitus of Vienne, in Gaul’,
and Cesarius of Arles*. I have set their words in the
margin. 7. The oldest commentator upon it, though
an Italian by birth and education, had yet travelled
into France, and was at length Bishop of Poictiers.
8. The number and antiquity of the manuscripts of
this Creed found in France confirm the same thing;
which’ has made several very learned men subscribe to

z The words of Avitus Viennensis, who was Bishop in 490, died
in 529 :—

“‘De Divinitate Spiritus Sancti, quem nec factum legimus, nec
creatum, nec genitum.”—In Sirmond., vol. ii. p. 159. ‘‘ Nos vero
Spiritum discimus ex Patre et Filio procedere. . . Sicut est proprium
Spiritui Sancto a Patre Filioque procedere, istud Fides Catholica
etiamsi renuentibus non persuaserit, in suze tamen Discipline Regula
non excedit.”—Le Quien, Panopl. contr. Schism. Grec., cent. xi.
ce. 4, § 2, p. 241.

“Non nisi ex eodem Symbolo, quod jam ante receptum esset,
Avitus Viennensis alicubi scribebat De Divinitate Sp. S.,” &c.—
Le Quien, Dissert. Damascen., p. 98.

a The words of Czsarius, who was Bishop in 503, died in 543 :—

“‘Rogo et admoneo vos, Fratres carissimi, ut Quicunque vult
Salvus esse, Fidem rectam et Catholicam discat, firmiter teneat,
inviolatamque conservet.... Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus et
Spiritus Sanctus: sed tamen non tres Dii, sed unus Deus. Qualis
Pater, talis Filius, talis et Spiritus Sanctus. Attamen credat unus-
quisque Fidelis quod Filius equalis est Patri secundum Divinita-
tem, et minor est Patre secundum humanitatem carnis, quam
de nostro assumpsit.”—Cesar. Arelat. ; in August., vol. v. App.,

Σ ε90.
ε N.B. The editors of St. Austin adjudge this to Cesarius; as does
also Oudinus, Comment. de Scriptor. Hecl., vol. i. p. 1348.

160 THE ATHANASIAN CREED,

this opinion», that the Athanasian Creed came first
from Gaul. And it is certain that no other country or
Church in the world has so fair, I may now say so
clear, a pretence to it. Many circumstances concur to
make good their title, as we have already seen; and
more will appear in my next chapter, when I come to
enquire who was the author.

Let it be allowed then, for the present, that our
Creed was originally Gallican, and made between 420
and 430. We may next consider, whether we cannot
come a little nearer towards fixing the time of its
composition. We must point out some season when
St. Austin’s works were known, and studied, and well
esteemed of in Gaul; and when the circumstances of
the place might the most probably give occasion for
the compiling such a Creed. Now it is observable that,
about the year 426, St. Austin held a very close and
intimate correspondence with the Gallican Churches.
Leporius had for some time spread false doctrine in
Gaul, chiefly relating to the Incarnation. His heresy
was much the same with what Nestorius’s was after-

Ὁ “Ceeterum cum ex allatis supra testimoniis videatur in Galliis
primum celebrari ceepisse hoc Symbolum, haud abs re conjectant
eruditi viri, in Galliis illud fuisse elucubratum. Quod item forte
suadeat antiquissimus ille in Galliis et in Anglia mos Symboli
alternatim concinendi ; itemque MSS. Gallicanorum copia et an-
tiquitas.”—Montfauc., Diatrib., p. 726.

“* K. Gallis primum prodiisse Symbolum Athanasianum animad-
vertimus, tum quod a Gallis scriptoribus ante omnes celebratum,
a Synodis Episcopisque Galliarum receptum, et commendatum
antiquitus fuerit, tum etiam quod Treviris in Galliarum Metropoli
illud lucubratum fuisse opinio increbuerit. Quapropter Pithoeus,
ac Vossius, aliique eruditissimi viri Gallum hominem Symboli pa-
rentem opinati sunt ; Antelmius vero, hac potissimum ratione duc-
tus, non Vigilium in Africa Episcopum, sed Vincentium Lirinensem
Opusculi hujus auctorem affirmavit.’’— Murator., Anecd., vol. ii.
p. 229.

WHEN AND WHERE MADF, 161

wards. The Gallican bishops censured him; and he
was forced to quit his country, having giving general
offence to all there. He took his leave of Gaul, and
passed over into Africa, with several others of the same
party and principles; where lighting upon Aurelius,
Bishop of Carthage, and St. Austin, he was by them
brought to a sense of his error, and induced to sign
a full recantation, called Libellus Satisfactionis ; where-
upon St. Austin, and Aurelius, and other African bi-
shops, became intercessors with the bishops of Gaul
in favour of Leporius, that he might be again received
and restored by them. One can scarce imagine any
more likely time, or more proper occasion, for the com-
piling such a Creed as the Athanasian is. All the lincs
and characters of it suit extremely well with the place,
the time, the occasion, and other circumstances, which
concur to persuade us that the Creed was, in all pro-
bability, composed in Gaul, sometime between the year
426 and the year 430: so that now we are confined to
the narrow compass of four or five years, upon the
most probable conjecture, and upon such evidences as
a case of this nature can admit of, where more cannot
be expected.

CHAPTER VIII.

Or THE AUTHOR OF THE CREED.

Ir we have hitherto gone upon sure grounds about
the time and place, we cannot long be at a loss for the
author of this Creed. Who were the most considerable
men, and best qualified for such a work, at that time
in Gaul? Antelmius will point out Vincentius Liri-
nensis. But I have several reasons to persuade me that
it was not, or could not be, Vincentius. No contem-
porary of his, nor any ancient writer, ever gives the
least hint of his composing such a work. Antelmius
supposes it to be after his Commonitory, that is, after
434; which if it had been, we should undoubtedly
have found the Creed more particular and explicit
against the Nestorian heresy: we should have read in
it Mother of God, One Son only, and something of
God's being born, suffering, dying, or the like; it can-
not, therefore, be justly ascribed to Vincentius. Not to
mention that such a work appears to have been much
fitter for a bishop of a church, than for a private pres-
byter; inasmuch as bishops generally were obliged to
give an account of their faith upon their first entrance
upon the episcopate: and they had the privilege like-
wise of making Creeds and Forms of Prayer for their
respective dioceses ; for which reasons, ceteris paribus,
this Creed ought rather to be ascribed to some bishop of
that time than to an inferior presbyter. And who more

OF THE AUTHOR OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 163

likely to compose such a Creed than Hilary, Bishop of
Arles, a celebrated man of that time, and of chief re-
pute in the Gallican Church? His title to it will stand
upon the following circumstances.

1. He was made bishop in Gaul within the time
mentioned, about the year 429. 2. He is allowed to
have been a man of great parts and capacity, of a neat
wit and elegant style for the age he lived in; inso-
much that Livius, a poet, and a celebrated writer of
that time, did not scruple to say, that if Austin had
come after Hilary, he would have been judged his in-
ferior*. 3. Gennadius’s character of Hilary’s writings,
that they were small Tracts”, but extremely fine, suits
well with our present supposition: but what most of
all confirms and strengthens it, is what Honoratus of
Marseilles, the writer of his life, tells us, that Hilary
composed an admirable exposition | Symboli Expositio
ambienda | of the Creed*. He calls it an Exposition of
the Creed (not a Creed), which is the proper title for

a “Quid plura dicam? Nisi dicendi pausa desuper eidem adve-
nisset, sermonem finire non potuerat, tanta gratia exundante, et
miraculo et stupore crescente, ut peritissimis desperationem tunc
autoribus szeculi ejus inferret oratio: in tantum ut Livius temporis
illius poeta, et autor insignis, publice proclamaret ; si Augustinus
post te fuisset, judicaretur inferior.” —Honoratus, iz Vita Stu.
Hilarii, e. 11, in Leo, vol. i. p. 740.

Ὁ ἐς Ingenio vero immortali, aliqua et parva edidit, qu erudite
animee, et fidelis linguze indicia sunt ; in quibus precipua,” &c.—
Gennad., Iilustr. Vir. Catal., α. 71, p. 42.

ς “*Gratia ejus ex his operibus, quae eodem dicendi impetu con- -
cepit, genuit, ornavit, protulit, possit absque hesitatione dignosci:
vita scilicet antistitis Honorati, homilize in totius anni festivitatibus
expeditz, Symboli Expositio ambienda, epistolarum vero tantus
numerus,” &c.—Honorat., Vit. Hilar., c. 11, p. 740.

N. B. There is some doubt whether Ravennius of Arles, successor
to Hilary, or Honoratus of Marseilles, be the author of this Life ;
but there is good reason to ascribe it to the latter. See Quesnel
in Leo, vol. ii. p.730; and Antelmius, de veris operibus Leon.
M., p. 367.

164 OF THE AUTHOR OF

it, and more proper than that of Symbolum, or Creed,
which it now bears. And so we find that it was but
very rarely called Symbolum by the ancients; once, I
think, by Hincmar, and neyer after for several centuries.
And when it was, yet it was observed by Thomas
Aquinas, that that was not so proper a name for it,
not being composed per moduwm Symboli, in the way of
a Creed; as indeed it is not. What the more ancient
and usual titles were, may appear in one view in
the tables above. Among others, we sometimes find
the title of Expositio Catholice Fidei, or yet nearer,
Expositio Symboli Apostolorum, An Exposition of the
Apostles’ Creed, which is as proper a title as any, and
not unlike to this of Honoratus. 4. I may farther ob-
serve that this Hilary of Arles was a great admirer and
follower of St. Austin, and had studied his writings;
which may account for his often following St. Austin’s
thoughts in the compiling of the Creed, and sometimes
his very expressions ; and, indeed, forming the whole
composition, in a manner, upon St. Austin’s plan, both
with respect to the Trinity and Incarnation. He did
not indeed come heartily into St. Austin’s doctrine
about grace, predestination, free-will, &c., any more
than the other Gallican bishops; but for other points,
as Prosper observes, Hilary was entirely in Austin’s
sentiments. 5. Hence, likewise, we may account for the
similitude of thoughts and expressions between Vin-

4 “*Unum eorum precipuze auctoritatis, et spiritualium stu-
diorum virum, sanctum Hilarium, Arelateusem Episcopum, sciat
Beatitudo tua admiratorem, sectatoremque in aliis omnibus tuze
esse doctrinze: et de hoc quod in querelam trahit, jam pridem
apud Sanctitatem tuam sensum suum per litteras velle conferve.”
—Prosper, ad Augustin., Ep, 225, vol. ii. p. 825.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 165
centius Lirinensis and the author of the Creed, which
Antelmius insists much upon to justify his ascribing
it to Vincentius. Hilary and Vincentius were contem-
poraries and countrymen, both of the same monastery
in the Isle of Lerin, much about the same time; so
that it is natural to suppose that they should fall into
the like expressions while treating on the same things ;
or that Vincentius might affect to copy from so great
aman as Hilary (first, Abbot of Lerin, and then Arch-
bishop of Arles) when writing on the same subject.
6. As to the style of Hilary, though we have but
little of his left to compare the Creed with, yet what
there is answers very well to the idea one should have
of a man that might be able to draw up such a piece.
His Life of the elder Honoratus, who was his prede-
cessor in the see of Arles, is an excellent performance,
and comes nothing short of the character he had raised
for wit and eloquence. The style is clear and strong,
short and sententious, abounding with antitheses, ele-
gant turns, and manly strokes of wit. He does but
touch a little in that piece upon the subject of the
Trinity ; so that one cannot from thence discover how
he would have expressed himself upon that head.
Only, that little there is there, is very like to a para-
graph in the Athanasian Creed, both for turn and ex-
pression. Speaking of Honoratus, or rather to him,
in the way of a rhetorical apostrophe, he observes * how
clear and expressive he had been in his discourses con-

e * Quotidianus siquidem in sincerissimis tractatibus confessionis
Patris ac Filii ac Spiritus Sencti testis fuisti: nec facile tam exerte,
tam lucide quisquam de Divinitatis Trinitate disseruit, cum eam
* personis distingueres, et gloriz (gloriam,) eternitate, ac majestate
sociares,”—Hilar., Vit. Honorat., ο. 38, p. 770.

106 " OF THE AUTHOR OF

cerning the Trinity in the Godhead; making the Per-
sons distinct, but co-uniting them in glory, eternity,
and majesty. Which may remind us of the words of
the Athanasian Creed, ‘‘There is one Person of the
Father, &c., but the Godhead of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one, the glory equal,
the majesty co-eternal.”’ However that be, this we
may learn from it, how great a commendation it was,
in Hilary’s account, to be able to speak clearly and
accurately upon the subject of the Trinity, and how
ambitious he might be of so doing himself: and we
know, from his dying instructions‘ to his friends about
him, how much he had the subject at heart. These,
I confess, are but little circumstances; yet they are of
some weight along with others more considerable, and
therefore ought not to be entirely omitted. What
weighs most with me is, that he was, in his time,
a man of the greatest authority in the Gallican Church8,
without whose advice, or privity at least, such a Creed
would hardly have passed; and that he actually was

f Among which this is one, and the first,—

‘*Fidem Trinitatis immobiliter retinete.”—Vit. Hilar., c. 20,
p. 747.

& Quesnel quotes this eulogium of him, from Constantius Pres-
byter of the same time :—

‘* Tilustrabatur hee civitas Hilario sacerdote, multimoda virtute
pretioso: erat enim fidei igneus torrens, czlestis eloquii, et prze-
ceptionis diviuze operarius indefessus.”’—Quesnel, Déss., vol. ii.
p. 043.

To which may be added one line of his epitaph :—

“Gemma saceraotum, plebisque, orbisque magister.”—Honorat.,

Tit was Daou.

‘‘Ubi instructos supervenisse vidisset, sermone ac vultu pariter
jn quadam gratia insolita excitabatur, seipso clarior apparebat ut
Silvius Kusebius, Domnulus, auctores cozevi, admiratione succensi
in hee verba proruperint: non doctrinam, non eloquentiam, sed
nescio quid super homines consecutum.’—Honorat., Vit. Hilur.,
ὉΠ 740:

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 167

the author of such a work as this is, and which must
either be this, or else is lost. ‘This Creed has been
sometimes ascribed to the elder Hilary of Poictiers,
though neither the diction, nor the matter, nor the
manner of it, look anything like his: only it seems this
Creed in one manuscript was found tacked to some
pieces of that Hilary. I pretend not to draw any
argument from hence in favour of our Hilary; though,
had the manuscript been a very ancient one, or copied
from one that was (neither of which appears), I should
have thought it of some moment, since the similitude
of names might possibly have occasioned it.

Having considered such reasons as seem to favour
the conjecture about Hilary of Arles, it will next be
proper to consider also what may be objected against it.

1. It may be objected, that this Hilary lived to the
year 449; saw the rise, progress, and condemnation of
the Nestorian heresy, and the beginning, at least, of the
Eutychian. May it not therefore be reasonably pre-
sumed, that had he been to compile a Confession of
Faith, he would have made it more full and particular
against both those heresies than I have supposed the
Creed to be? To this I answer, that the objection
would be of weight if I supposed this Creed to have
been made by him in the last years of his life: but as
I take it to have been made a little after his entrance
upon his episcopate, (to be a rule to his clergy all his
time, as well as to satisfy his colleagues of his own
orthodoxy, ) the objection affects not me. Admit the
Creed to have been drawn up by him about the year
429 or 430, and then it is just what it should be,
’ exactly suited to the circumstances of time, and place :

168 OF THE AUTHOR OF

and as to his enlarging or altering it afterwards, upon
the rise of the two heresies, it might not be in his
power when once gone out of his hands; nor would
it be necessary, since both these heresies are sufficiently
obviated in this Creed, though not so explicitly con-
demned as in many that came later.

2. It may be asked, how the author’s name came
to be so siudiously concealed even by those that re-
ceived and admired the Creed; and how it came to take
at length the name of Athanasius, rather than of
Hilary? I answer: This objection will equally lie
against any other author assignable whatever, except
Athanasius himself, whom we cannot with any colour
of reason ascribe it to. It will be as easy to account
for the studious concealment of the author’s name,
supposing it Hilary, as for any other, or perhaps easier.
This Hilary had stoutly defended the rights of his
see against Pope Leo’s encroachments in the matter
of appeals, and other branches of jurisdiction. This
brought the good man under disfavour and disrepute ;
as must happen to the best of men when they have
persons of greater figure and authority than themselves
to contend with, however righteous and clear their
cause may be. Besides this, Hilary had entertained
a dislike to some of St. Austin’s prevailing doctrines,
about Grace, growing much in vogue; so that St. Au-
stin’s more zealous disciples had a pique against him on
that account, and had the less value forhis name. The
way, then, to have this Creed pass current, and make
it generally received, was to stifle as much as possible
the name of the author, and to leave it to stand by its
9wu intrinsic worth and weight. As to the name of

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 169

Athanasius, I take it to have come thus: upon the re-
vival of the Arian controversy in Gaul, under the in-
fluence of the Burgundian kings, it was obvious to
call one side Athanasians, and the other side Arians ;
and so also to name the Orthodox Faith the Athanasian
Faith, as the other Arian. This Creed, therefore,
being a summary of the Orthodox and Catholic faith,
might, in process of time, acquire the name of the
Athanasian Faith, or Fides Athanasti, in opposition to
the contrary scheme, which might as justly be called
Fides Arti, or the Arian Faith. The equivocalness of
the title gave a handle to those that came after to
understand it of a form of Faith composed by Atha-
nasius; just as the equivocal title of Apostolical, given
to the Roman Creed, occasioned the mistake about its
being made by the Apostles. This appears to me the
most probable account of the whole matter: and it is
very much confirmed by what we see of several tracts
wrote in the fifth and sixth centuries, dialogue-wise,
where Athanasius is made the mouth of the Catholic
side, and Arius of his party, and Photinus of his: not
meaning that Athanasius, Arius, and Photinus were
really the speakers in those conferences, but the readers
were to understand the Athanasian, Arian, and Photi-
nian principles, as being there fairly represented under
those leading names.

3. If it be asked farther, why this Creed was not
cited during the Nestorian and Eutychian controversy,
when there was so frequent occasion for it; I answer,
partly because the Creed was not particular and ex-
plicit enough to have done much service ; but, chiefly,
because the author had been eclipsed, and his repu-

170 OF THE AUTHOR OF

tation obscured by greater names than his, so that his
authority had weighed little; and to produce it with-
out a name would have signified less. This objection,
therefore, though it might be of great force in the
question about Athanasius, is of no weight at all against
our present supposition about Hilary of Arles.

These are all the objections which to me occur: and
they seem to be so far from weakening the grounds upon
which I proceed, that they rather tend to strengthen
and confirm them. And though I do not pretend to
strict certainty about the author of the Creed, yet
I persuade myself that none that have been hitherto
named have any fairer or so fair a claim to it as the
man I have mentioned. Not Athanasius, not Hilary
of Poictiers, not Eusebius of Verceil, not Pope Anasta-
sius I., nor any of that name; not Vincentius Lirinensis,
nor Vigilius Tapsensis, nor Athanasius of Spire, nor
Fortunatus, nor Bonifacius, nor any other that has
been thought on. From the many conjectures hereto-
fore advanced by learned men, one may perceive that
it has been judged to be a thing worth the enquiring
after: and as others have taken the liberty of naming
such author or authors as to them appeared most likely
to have made the Creed, so have I, in my turn, not
scrupling to add one more to the number.

The sum, then, of what I have presumed to advance
upon probable conjecture, in a case which will not ad-
mit of full and perfect evidence, is this: That Hilary,
once Abbot of Lerins, and next Bishop of Arles, about
the year 430, composed the Exposition of Faith, which
now bears the name of the Athanasian Creed. It was
drawn up for the use of the Gallican clergy, and espe-

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 171

cially for the diocese or province of Arles. It was
esteemed by as many as were acquainted with it, as
a valuable summary of the Christian faith. It seems
to have been in the hands of Vincentius, monk of
Lerins, before 434, by what he has borrowed from it;
and to have been’ cited in part by Avitus of Vienne,
about the year 500, and by Cesarius of Arles, before
the year 543. About the year 570, it became famous
enough to be commented upon like the Lord’s Prayer
and Apostles’ Creed, and together with them. Ali
this while, and perhaps for several years lower, it had
not yet acquired the name of the Athanasian Faith, but
was simply styled the Catholic Faith. But, before 670,
Athanasius’s admired name came in to recommend and
adorn it; being in itself also an excellent system of
the Athanasian principles of the Trinity ® and Incar-
nation, in opposition chiefly to Arians, Macedonians,
and Apollinarians. The name of the Faith of Atha-
nasius, in a while, occasioned the mistake of ascribing
it to him as his composition. This gave it authority
enough to be cited and appealed to as standard in the
disputes of the middle ages, between Greeks and Latins,
about the Procession: and the same admired name,
together with the intrinsic worth and value of the
form itself, gave it credit enough to be received into
the public service in the Western Churches: first in

Β ἐς Romane ego ecclesie quasi Symbolum, incerto Auctore, ex-
istimem, hinc Athanasii dictum et putatum quod dilucide Catho-
licam, ipsamque Athanasii Fidem (de ‘Trinitate, maxime) com-
plecteretur ; cujus inter Catholicos sic spectata Fides, ut ejus
Communio velut tessera Catholici esset ; censereturque ejus cou-
demnatio ipsa Nicene et Catholice Fidei ejuratio; uti se res
habuit in Liberio Romano antistite,” &¢.—Combetis, not. in Calec.
in Auctar., vol. ii. p. 296.

172 oF THE AUTHOR OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

France, next in Spain, soon after in Germany, Eng-
land, Italy, and at length in Rome itself; while many
other excellent Creeds, drawn up in councils, or re- .
commended by emperors, yet never arrived to any such
honour and esteem as this hath done. The truly good
and great author (as I now suppose him) though ill-
used by the then Pope of Rome, and not kindly treated
with respect to his memory in after ages, has never-
theless been the mouth of all the Western Churches,
and some Eastern too, for a long tract of centuries, in
celebrating the glories of the co-eternal Trinity. And
so may he ever continue, till the Christian Churches
can find out (which they will not easily do) a juster, or
sounder, or more accurate form of faith than this is.

CHAPTER IX.

Tue CREED ITSELF IN THE OrIGINAL LANGUAGE, WITH
PaRALLEL PassaGes FROM THE FaruHers.

My design in this chapter is—

1. To exhibit the Creed in its native language, that
is, in Latin, according to the most ancient and most
correct copies. The Various Lections will be placed at
the bottom, under the Creed. The manuscripts there-
in referred to, shall be denoted by such names or
marks as appear above, in the Table of Manuscripts.

2. Opposite to the Creed, in another column, I place
Parallel Passages, selected from authors that lived and
wrote before 430, principally from St. Austin: and this
with design to enforce and illustrate my main argu-
ment before insisted on, namely, that the Creed con-
tains nothing but what had been asserted, in as full
and express words as any words of the Creed are, by
Church writers before the time specified.

3. I subjoin under these, at the bottom of the page,
some farther select passages from Church writers before
or after the time mentioned; partly to serve as com-
ments upon some places of the Creed, and partly to
shew how some writers of the fifth century, Vincen-
tius especially, expressed themselves on the same heads,
that the reader may from thence judge whether they
appear prior to the Creed or the Creed prior to them.

174 THE ORIGINAL CREED, WITH PARALLEL PASSAGES.

I ought to ask my English reader’s pardon for this
part, which he may please to pass over, and to go on
to the next chapter, intended chiefly for his satisfac-
tion and to make him some amends for the present”
interruption: for my design in subjoining an English
Commentary is to serve much the same purposes with
what is here intended by the Latin; though not all
of them, but as many as the nature of the thing will
allow.

THE

ORIGINAL CREED,
WITH

PARALLEL PASSAGES.

176 THE ORIGINAL CREED,

Fides Catholica.

1. Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est
ut teneat Catholicam Fidem.

2. Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque ser-
vaverit, absque dubio in eternum peribit.

3. Fides autem Catholica hee est, ut unum Deum
in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in Unitate veneremur:

4. Neque confundentes Personas, neque substantiam
separantes.

5. Alia est enim Persona Patris, alia Filii, alia
Spiritus Sancti.

Variantes Lectiones.

1. (salvus esse), esse salvus. Cod. Ambros. et Fortunat. in MS.
Ambros.

2. (quisque), quis: Cod. Ambros. (inviolatamque), inviolabilem-
que: Cod. San-germ. (absque dubio), deest in Cod. Reg. Paris.
(in celernum perrbit), peribit in eternum. San-germ.

5. (alia Filit), alia Persona Filii. Cod. Ambros. item Fortuna”
(alia Spiritus), alia Persona Sp. Sanct. Cod, Ambros.

Lod

WITH PARALLEL PASSAGES. 1,1

Loca parallela excerpta ex Variis; Ante An. 430.

1. “Catholics discipline majestate institutum est,
ut accedentibus ad religionem Fides persuadeatur ante
omnia.”—August., de Utilit. Cred., ο. 29, vol. vill. p. 64.

‘‘ Hee est Fides nostra, quoniam hee est Fides

recta, que etiam Catholica nuncupatur.”
e. Maxim., lib. ii. ὁ. 23, § 3, vol. vill. Ὁ. 729.

2. ‘‘Heretici .... simplici Fide Catholica contenti
esse nolunt; qui una parvulis salus est.’””—August.,
Enarr. in Psalm. x., ¢. ὃ, vol. iv. p. 60.

August.,

9. Nov δὲ δίδασκε τοσοῦτον εἰδέναι μόνον" μονάδα ἐν
τριάδι, καὶ τριάδα ἐν μονάδι προσκυνουμένην. παράδοξον
ἔχουσαν καὶ τὴν διαίρεσιν καὶ τὴν évwow.—Greg. Nazian.,
Orat. 28, de Pace, 6. 33, vol. i. p. 422.

4. ‘“‘ Kt hee omnia nec confuse unum sunt, nec dis-
juncte tria sunt.”’—August., Hpist. 170, § 5, vol. ii.
p- 609.

5. ‘“‘Impietatem Sabellii declinantes, tres personas
expressas sub proprietate distinguimus—Aliam Patris,

Excerpta ex Patribus.

1. “Credamus ergo Deo, fratres: hoc est primum preceptum,
hoe est initium religionis et vite nostre, fixum habere cor in Fide.”
—August., Serm. 38, c. 3, vol. v. p. 195.

2. ‘*Catholicorum hoe fere proprium, deposita Sanctorum Pa-
trum et commissa servare, damnare profanas novitates: et sicut
dixit, et iterum dixit Apostolus ; Si quis annunciaverit, preterquam
quod acceptum est, anathemare.”’—Vincent., ο. 34.

3. “Catholica Ecclesia unum Deum in Trinitatis plenitudine, et
item Trinitatis equalitatem in una Divinitate veneratur.”—Ibid.,
ce. 22, 18.

4. ““Ut neque singularitas substantiz personarum confundat
proprietatem, neque item Trinitatis distinctio unitatem separet
Deitatis.”—Ibid., c. 22,

5. ‘*Quia scilicet alia est persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus
Sancti.”—Ibid., ο. 19.

N

178 THE ORIGINAL CREED,

6. Sed Patris, et Fil, et Spiritus Sancti, una est
divinitas, equalis gloria, cozeterna majestas.

7. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis et Spiritus
Sanctus,

8. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus et
Spiritus Sanctus.

9. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus et
Spiritus Sanctus.

10. ternus Pater, eternus Filius, xternus et
Spiritus Sanctus.

11. Et tamen non tres eeterni, sed unus eternus.

6. (cowterna). Codd. nonnulli habent ef cowterna. Deest et in
Cod. Ambros. et in Fortunat. et Brunon., aliisque multis.

7. (talis et Spiritus Sanctus) Ita Codd. Ambros. Reg. Paris.
C.C.C.C. 1, Cotton. 1. Jacob. 1. Fortunat. item Ceesarius Arelat.
antiquissimus. MSS. recentiores, et editi omittunt ef.

8. (et Spiritus Sanctus). Deest vocula et in recentioribus Codi-
cibus: retinent plerique antiquiores hoc in loco, et similiter in
subsequentibus, ante Spiritus Sanctus. Queze lectio, opinor, vera
est, ab autore Symboli profecta ; scilicet, ad majorem emphasim,
propter heeresim Macedonianam nondum penitus extinctam. Nos-
trum autem est Symbolum exhibere quale se primitus habuit.

WITH PARALLEL PASSAGES. 179

aliam Filii, aliam Spiritus Sancti esse personam.’’?—
Pelag. Symbol., in Lambec., vol. 11. p. 274.

6. ‘‘Confutantes Arium, unam eandemque dicimus
Trinitatis esse substantiam.””—Pelag. Symb., ib.

“‘Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam virtutem,
unam substantiam, unam Deitatem, unam majestatem,
unam gloriam.”—August. σ. Maxim., lib. ii. c. 26,
§ 14, vol. viii. p. 744.

7. ‘*Qualis est Pater secundum substantiam, talem
genuit Filium: et Spiritus Sanctus—est ejusdem et
ipse substantiz cum Patre et Filio *.”—Faustin., Fd.

8. ‘“Quicquid ad seipsum dicitur Deus, et de sin-
gulis personis singulariter dicitur, et simul de ipsa
Trinitate.”—August., de Zrin., lib. v. c. 8, § 9, vol. vill.
p. 838.

9. ‘‘Magnus Pater, magnus Filius, magnus Spiritus
Sanctus.”—August., 7b., p. 837.

10. ‘‘Hoe et de bonitate, et de sternitate, et de
Omnipotentia Dei dictum sit.”—August., ἐ}., p. 839.

“ Aternus Pater, cozternus Filius, cowternus Spiri-
tus Sanctus.”—August., Serm. 105, vol. v. p. 548,

6. ‘*Sed tamen Patris et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti non alia et alia,
sed una eademque natura.”—Vincent., c. 19.

7. ‘*Qualis immensa est Patris persona, talis est et Filii, talis
est Sancti Spiritus.”—Philastr., Her., 45, p. 112; (51, p. 106, et.
p. 178).

8. ‘‘Illud precipue teneamus, quicquid ad se dicitur prestantis-
sima illa et divina sublimitas, substantialiter dici; quod autem ad
aliquid non substantialiter, sed relative: tantamque vim esse ejus-
dem substantize in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, ut quicquid de
singulis ad seipsos dicitur, non pluraliter in summa, sed singulari-
tur accipiatur.”—August., de Trin., lib. v. c. 8, § 9, p. 837.

a The exact words quoted are not to be found in the treatise of
Faustinus de Fide; but in ec. 4, p. 647, he says, ‘‘ Qualis enim
Pater Deus est, talis et Deus Filius est:” and in ο. 7, p. 650, ““ 816
est Spiritus Dei ut sit ejusdem substantize cum Pater et Filio.”

180 THE ORIGINAL CREED,

12. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed
unus increatus, et unus immensus,

13. Similiter, omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius,
omnipotens et Spiritus Sanctus.

14. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus om-
nipotens.

15. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus et Spiritus
Sanctus.

16. Et tamen non tres Dui, sed unus est Deus.

17. Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus
et Spiritus Sanctus.

18. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus est Do-
minus.

12. (unus increatus, et unus immensus), Unus immensus et unus
inereatus. Cod, Ambros.

14. (Et tamen), deest tamen in Cod. Ambros.

16. (est Deus). Deest est in MS, Ambros.

18. (est Dominus). Deest est Cod, Ambros.

WITH PARALLEL PASSAGES. 181

12. “Non tamen tres magni, sed unus magnus.”
— August., de TZrin., lib. v. ¢. 8, § 9, vol. viii.
p. 837.

18. ‘‘Itaque omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius,
omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus.’’—/d.

14. ‘‘Nec tamen tres omnipotentes, sed unus om-
nipotens.”—J6., p. 838.

15. ‘Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanc-
tus.”’—August., de Trin., lib. viii. c. 1, vol. vill. p. 865;
et Serm. 105, ὁ. 4, vol. v. p. 542.

16. ‘“‘ Nec tamen tres Dii. .. sed unus Deus.”—
August., de Trin., 1. ¢.

17. “Sie et Dominum si queras, singulum quemque
respondeo. . . . ’—August., ὁ. Maxim., lib. ii. ὁ. 23,
§ 3, vol. viii. p. 729.

18. ‘Sed simul omnes non tres Dominos Deos, sed
unum Dominum Deum dico.’”’—Zb.

12. “Nec magnos tres dicimus, sed magnum unum, quia non
participatione magnitudinis Deus magnus est, sed seipso magno
magnus est, quia ipse sua est magnitudo.”—August., de Trin.,
lib. v. c. 10, vol. viii. p. 838.

13. ‘‘ Sed ne duos omnipotentes intelligas precavendum est: licet
enim et Pater sit omnipotens, et Filius, tamen unus est omnipotens,
sicut et unus est Deus, quia Patris et Filii eadem omnipotentia est,
sicut et eadem Deitas.”—Faustin. (p. 123); de Trinit., ο. 3, p. 646.

14. ‘‘Sicut simul illi tres unus Deus, sic simul illi tres unus om-
nipotens est, et invisibilis unus, Deus Pater et Filius et Spiritus
Sanctus est.”—August., Coll. cum Mazxim., c. 12, vol. viii. p. 654.
Cp. de Trin., lib. viii. c. 1, vol. viii. p. 654.

16. ‘‘Unus Deus propter inseparabilem divinitatem ; sicut unus
Omnipotens propter inseparabilem Omnipotentiam.”—August., de
Civit. Dei, lib. xi. ο. 24, vol. vii. p. 290.

“Tn illa summa Trinitate, que incomparabiliter rebus omnibus
antecellit, tanta est inseparabilitas, ut cum Trinitas hominum non
possit dici unus homo, illa unus Deus et dicatur et sit.”—August.,
de Trin., lib. xv. ο. 23, ὃ 43, vol. viii. p. 996.

18. “Non sunt enim duo Domini ubi Dominatus unus est ; quia
Pater in Filio, et Filius in Patre, et ideo Dominus unus.”—Ambros.,
de Sp. S., lib. iii. ο. 15, vol. ii. p. 686.

182 THE ORIGINAL CREED,

19. Quia sicut singillatim unamquamque Personam
et Deum et Dominum confiteri Christiana veritate com-
pellimur ; ita tres Deos, aut Dominos dicere Catholica
religione prohibemur, ;

20. Pater a nullo est factus, nec creatus, nec genitus.

21. Filius a Patre solo est, non factus, nec creatus,
sed genitus.

22. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio, non factus, nec
creatus, nec genitus est, sed procedens.,

28. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres; unus Filius,

non tres Filii; unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus
Sancti.

19. (et Deum et Dominum). Ita MS. Ambros. et MS. Oxon.
Fortunat. rectissime. Cod. Fortunat. Ambros. aliique, tum MSS.
tum impressi, habent Deum et Dominum. Brunonis Cod. et Coll.
Joh. MS. Deum ac Dominum. San-germanensis, Dominum et
Deum. Plerique editi, Deum aut Dominum. Que lectio, me judice,
omnium pessima est. [aut Dominos] Ita plerique MSS. et editi:
sed nonnulli, ac Dominos.

(prohibemur). MS. Ambr. legit prohibemus: male.

22. (sed procedens), Cod. Ambros, adjecta habet ista; Patri et
Filio coeternus est. Glossa, uti videtur, ex margine in textum
immissa: nisi forte librarius verba illa ex Bachiarii Fide, quam
simul descripserat, hue transtulerit ; sive oscitanter, sive majoris
elucidationis gratia.—Vid. Bachiar. Fid., apud Murator., Anecd.,
vol. ii. pp. 16, 18.

WITH PARALLEL PASSAGES. 188

19. ‘Cum de singulis queritur, unusquisque eorum
et Deus, et omnipotens esse respondeatur; cum vero
de omnibus simul, non tres Du, vel tres omnipotentes,
sed unus Deus omnipotens.’’— August., de Civit. De’,
lib. xi. 6: 24, vol. vii. p. 290.

20. ‘“‘ Dicimus Patrem Deum de nullo.’”’—August.,
Serm. 140, § 2, vol. v. p. 680.

‘Non enim habet de quo sit, aut ex quo procedat.”’
—August., de Zrin., lib. iv. c. 20, § 29, vol. vill. p. 829.

21. ‘‘ Filius Patris solius—Hune quippe de sua sub-
stantia genuit, non ex nihilo fecit.”,—August., Zp. 170
(alias 66), §§ 2, 3, vol. 11. p. 609.

22. ‘‘De Filio Spiritus Sanctus procedere reperi-
tur.”—August., de Zrin., lib. xv. ὁ. 17, ὃ 29, vol. vii.
p- 988.

** Neque natus est sicut Unigenitus, neque factus,”’
&e.—Id., lib. v. ὁ. 14, ὃ 15, p. 841.

23. ‘“‘Unus est Pater, non duo vel tres; et unus
Filius, non duo vel tres; et unus amborum Spiritus,
non duo vel tres.”— August., ὁ. Maxim., lib. 11. ὁ. 23,
§ 3, vol. vill. p. 729.

22. **Spiritus quoque Sanctus non, sicut creatura, ex nihilo est
factus ; sed sic a Patre Filioque procedit, ut nec a Filio, nec a Patre
sit factus.”—August., Hp. 170, ὃ 4, vol. ii. p. 609.

Td ἄγιον πνεῦμα... οὔτε γεννητὸν οὔτε κτιστὸν... ἄλλ᾽ ἐκ
πατρὺς ἐκπορευόμενον.---ρίρῃεαη. adv. Heres., lib. ii. ὁ. 18, vol. i.
p. 742.

23. Οὔτε οὖν τρεῖς πατέρες, τρεῖς υἱοὶ, οὔτε τρεῖς παρᾶάκλητοι"
ἀλλ᾽ εἷς EOHS. καὶ εἷς υἱὸς, καὶ εἷς mapaxAntos.—Pseud. Ignat.,
ad Philipp., ο. 2, p. 118; ef. Epiphan., 1. ο.

184 THE ORIGINAL CREED,

24. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius,
nihil majus aut minus, sed tote tres persone cowterne
sibi sunt, et cowquales.

25. Ita ut per omnia, sicut jam supra dictum est,
et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate vene-
randa sit.

26. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate
sentiat.

27. Sed necessarium est ad eternam salutem, ut
Incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fi-
deliter credat.

28. Est ergo Fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur,
quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus
pariter, et homo est.

24. (Et in hac), deest et in Cod. San-germ.

28. (confiteamur, quia). Cod. Ambros atque editi nonnulli le-
eunt guod. Plares habent qui.

(Deus pariter, et homo est). Ita Codd. Bened. 1, Colbertin. Jacob. 1,
et Fortunat. Ambros. et San-germ. legunt, et Deus pariter et
homo est. Editi, Deus et homo est.

WITH PARALLEL PASSAGES. 185

24. “In hac Trinitate, non est aliud alio majus, aut
minus.’’—August., Serm. 214, § 10, vol. v. p. 948.
“ΝΟ enim prorsus aliquis in Trinitate gradus: nihil
quod inferius, superiusve dici possit.””—Pelag. Symb.,
in Lambece., vol. ii. p. 274.
25. Vide supra, in Articulo 3.

26. Vide supra, Artic. 2.

27. ‘‘Dominus autem manens cum discipulis per
quadraginta Dies, significare dignatus est quia per
istud tempus necessaria est omnibus Fides Incarna-
tionis Christi; que infirmis est necessaria.’’—August.,
Serm. 264, § 5, vol. v. p. 1077.

28. ‘* Proinde, Christus Jesus, Dei Filius, est et
Deus et homo.”’—August., Enchir., ο. 35, § 10, vol. vi.
p. 210.

24. *‘Increata et inestimabilis Trinitas, quee unius est «ternita-
tis et glorie, nec tempus nec gradum vel posterioris recipit vel
prioris.”—Ambros., de Fid., lib. iv. ο. 11, vol. ii. p. 547.

25. ‘‘ Ita tota Deitas sui perfectione equalis est, ut exceptis
vocabulis qu proprietatem indicant personarum, quicquid de una
le dicitur, de tribus dignissime possit intelligi.” — Pelag.,
Symb.

26. ‘Si quis hane Fidem non habet, Catholicus dici non potest,
quia Catholicam non tenet Fidem ; et ideo alienus est ac profanus,
et adversus veritatem rebellis Fides.’””—Ambros., in Lambec.,
vol. ii. p. 268.

27. ‘‘Ideo conversatio ipsius in carne post resurrectionem per
quadraginta dies erat necessaria, ut demonstraret tam diu esse ne-
cessariam Fidem Incarnationis Christi quamdiu in ista vita doce-
tur oe in diluvio fluctuare.”—August., Serm. 264, ὃ 5, vol. v.
p- 1078.

180 THE ORIGINAL CREED,

29. Deus est ex Substantia Patris ante seecula geni-
tus: homo ex substantia matris in seculo natus.

30. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo ex anima ra-
tionali et humana carne subsistens.

31. AMqualis Patri secundum Divinitatem: minor
Patre secundum humanitatem.

32. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed
unus est Christus.

33. Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in car-
nem, sed adsumptione humanitatis in Deum.

29. (ex Substantia). Colbertin. de substantia: et infra, de substan-
tia matris. (Homo). Ambros. Cod. legit, et homo est. Fortuuat.
et homo. Post, matris, San-germ. Cod. habet, in seculo genitus
perfectus homo.

30. (rationalz), rationabili. Codd. Ambros. Colbert. et San-germ.

31. (minor Patre), minor Patri. Colb.
32. Deest et Colb.

33. (ir carnem), in carne. MSS. Ambros. Colbert, San-germ. alii-
que plurimi, et vetusti. Habent etiam in De», pro, in Deum. At
multi etiam Codices, cum Fortunati Cod. Ambrosiano, receptam
lectionem prezeferunt ; quae utique preeferenda videtur. Cod. San-
germ. pro conversionc habet conversatione. Cod. Colbert: totam
hane pericopen sic exhibet; Unus autem, non ex eo quod sit in
carne conversa Divinitas, sed quia est in Deo adsumpta dignanter
humanitas.

WITH PARALLEL PASSAGES. 187

29. ‘“‘Deus ante omnia secula: homo in nostro
seculo—unus Dei Filius, idemque hominis Filius.”
—Tbid.

30. ‘ Confitemur in Christo unam esse Filii perso-
nam, ut dicamus duas esse perfectas atque integras
substantias, id est, Deitatis, et humanitatis que ex
anima continetur et corpore.”—Pelag., Symb., p. 275.

81. ‘‘ Aqualem Patri secundum Divinitatem, mino-
rem autem Patre secundum carnem, hoc est, secundum
hominem.”’—August., Hpzst. 137, vol. 11. p. 406.

32. “‘Aenoscamus geminam substantiam Christi ;
Divinam scilicet qua sequalis est Patri, hamanam qua
major est Pater: utrumque autem simul non duo, sed
unus est Christus.””—August., 7x Johan., Tract. 78, § 3,
vol. 111. part 2, p. 699.

33. “ Verbum caro factum est, a Divinitate carne
suscepta, non in carnem Divinitate mutata.’””—August.,
Enchir., ¢. 34, ὃ 10, vol. vi. p. 209.

29. “Idem ex Patre ante secula genitus, idem in seculo ex
matre generatus.’’—Vincent., c. 19.

30. **Adversus Arium, veram et perfectam verbi Divinitatem ;
adversus Apollinarem, perfectam hominis in Christo defendimus
veritatem.”—August., Serm. 258, § 2, vol. v. App. p. 391.

‘* Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: in Deo summa Divinitas, in

homine plena humanitas: quippe que animam simul habeat et
carnem.’—Vincent., c. 19.

32. *‘ Caro Christus, et dnima Christus, et verbum Christus: nec
tamen tria hee tres Christi, sed unus Christus.”—August., in
Johan., Tract. 47, ὃ 12, vol. iii. part 2, p. 612.

33. ‘‘ Nemo ergo credat Dei Filium conversum et commutatum
esse in hominis Filium; sed potius credamus, et non consumpta
divina, et perfecte assumpta humana substantia, manentem Dei
Filium factum hominis Filium.”—August., Serm. 187, § 3, vol. v.
p. 887.

*“Deus ergo hominem assumsit, homo in Deum transivit: non
nature versibilitate, sicut Apollinariste dicunt, sed Dei digna-
tione.’—Gennad., Hccl. Dogm., ¢. 2, in August., vol. viii. p. 75.

188 THE ORIGINAL CREED,

34. Unus omnino, non confusione substantia, sed
unitate Persone.

385. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est
homo ; ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.

36. Qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad in-
feros, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.

37. Adscendit ad Clos, sedet ad dexteram Patris;
inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos.

38. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere
habent cum corporibus suis, et reddituri sunt de factis
propris rationem.

39. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam eternam,
qui vero mala, in ignem sternum.

34. (Unus omnino), unus Christus est. Colbert.

85. (Nam sicut, dc.) Totum omittit Cod. Colbertinus. Scilicet,
uti credo, ne simile illud in erroris sui patrocinium arriperent Mo-
nophysite. (Rutionalis), rationabilis. Ambros.

36. (Qui passus est pro salute nostra), qui secundum Fidem nos-
tram passus et mortuus. Colbert.

(ad inferos), ad infernos. Cod. San-germ. ad inferna. Fortunat.
MS. Oxon. ad inferna descendens. Cod. Colbertin.

(tertia die), deest in Cod. Ambros, San-germ. Cotton 1, Jacob. 1,
(vesurrexit), surrexit. Cod. Ambros. Fortunat.

37. (sedet), sedit. Cod. Ambr. (Deaxterdm Puatris): Ita Codd. Am-
bros, et Fortunat. et Symb. Roman. Vet. Dexteram Patris Omni-
potentis. Cod. San-germ. Dextram Omnipotentis. Cod. Brunonis,
Dexteram Dei Patris sedet, sicut vobis in Symbolo traditum est.
Cod. Colbert. Dexteram Dei Patris Omnipotentis, Codd. recen-
tiores, cum excusis.

38. (resurgere habent cum corporibus suis, et), desunt in Cod. Am-
bros. Colbertinus legit ; ad cujus adventum erunt omnes homines
sine dubio in suis corporibus resurrecturi. Sed nihil mutamus.

39. (egerunt) egerint. Cod. Ambros. Totum hune Articulum

WITH PARALLEL PASSAGES. 189

34. “Idem Deus qui homo, et qui Deus idem homo:
non confusione nature, sed unitate persone.’’—August.,
Serm. 186, § 1, vol. v. p. 885.

35. “Sicut enim unus est homo anima rationalis et
caro; sic unus est Christus Deus et homo.”—August.,
in Joh., Tract. 78, § 3, vol. 111. Ὁ. 699.

36. “ Descendit ad inferna, tertia die resurrexit
a mortuis.’—Symb. Aquileia, in Heurtley, p. 30.

37. “ Ascendit ad ccelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris ;
inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos.” —— Symb.
Roman. Vet., in Heurtley, p. 31.

88. “ Resurrectionem carnis ita credimus, ut dica-
mus nos in eadem qua nunc sumus veritate membrorum
esse reparandos.’’—Pelag., Symb., p. 275.

39. “Et procedent qui bona fecerunt, in resurrec-
tionem vite, qui vero mala egerunt in resurrectionem
judicii.”—Joh. v. 29.

34, ‘‘Unus autem,non ... Divinitatis et humanitatis confusione
sed... unitate persons.”—Vincent. Lir., ο. 19.

36. ‘Quis ergo, nisi infidelis, negaverit fuisse apud inferos
Christum ?.. .

“ὁ Quamobrem teneamus firmissime quod fides habet fundatissima
auctoritate firmatum . .. et cetera que de illo testatissima veritate
conscripta sunt ; in quibus etiam hoc est, quod apud inferos fuit.”
—August., Hp. 164, vol. ii. pp. 574, 578.

38. ‘*Si id resurgere dicitur quod cadit, caro ergo nostra in
veritate resurget, sicut in veritate cadit. Et non secundum Orige-
nem, immutatio corporum erit,” &.—Gennad., Hccl. Dogmat.,
ce: 6, p: 10:

ι 39. * Post resurrectionem et judicium, non credamus restitutio-

190 THE ORIGINAL CREED,

40. Hee est Fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque fide-
liter, firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.

sic legit Colbertinus ; Ut qui bona egerunt, eant in vitam eternam ;
qui mala in ignem zeternum.

(qui vero), Cod. Ambros. et Cotton. 1, omittunt vero. Codices
nonnulli legunt, et qui vero: alii, et qui mala.

40. (quisque), Cod. Ambros. unusquisque. Colbertinus pergit :
Heee est Fides sancta et catholica, quam omnis homo, qui ad
vitam «ternam pervenire desiderat, scire integre debet, et fideliter
custodire.

WITH PARALLEL PASSAGES. 191

“Tbunt hi in supplicium eternum, justi autem in
vitam «ternam.’’—Matt. xxv. 46.

40. “‘Cavete, dilectissimi, ne quis vos ab Ecclesix
Catholice Fide ac unitate seducat. Qui enim vobis
aliter Evangelizaverit praterquam quod accepistis, ana-
thema sit.”—August., Serm. 205, § 8, vol. v. p. 952.

nem futuram, sicut Origenes delirat, ut demones vel impii homines
post tormenta quasi suppliciis expurgati, vel illi in angelicam qua
creati sunt redeant diynitatem, vel isti justorum societate donen-
tur.”—Gennad., ibid, ο. 9, p. 77.

40. Ὁ ταῦτα πιστεύσας ὡς ἔχει, ὡς γεγένηται, μακάριος" 6
ταῦτα μὴ πιστεύων ἐναγὴς οὐχ ἧττον τῶν τὸν κύριον σταυρωσάν-

twv.—Pseud. Ignat., ad Philipp., ¢. 3, p. 118.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.

PassaGEs From THE AnTE-NIcENE Fatuers, ConFIRMING
THE STATEMENTS OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

THE evidence adduced by Dr. Waterland in the pre-
ceding chapter in confirmation of the statements made
in the Athanasian Creed being confined to extracts
from writers of the fourth and fifth centuries, it seems
desirable to complete the chain of testimony, by adding
passages from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, which express,
with more or less closeness, the same views as to the
nature of God, and the distinction and Divinity of the
three Persons in the blessed Trinity. The collection
of passages is derived, in great measure, from the late
Professor Blunt’s ‘‘ Lectures on the Right Use of the
Early Fathers?,’’ supplemented from Dr. Burton’s
‘‘Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Di-
vinity of Christ, and to the Doctrine of the Trinity.”
The series begins with Ignatius, as the evidence of
Clement of Rome on the subject consists in implication”
rather than direct statement, with the exception of
some passages in his second Epistle’, which is of very
doubtful authenticity.

8 Be ii. lect. x. PP. 396—408 of second edition.

bc. 2, pp. 10,12; c. 16, pp. 62, 645; ὁ. 22, p. 98; c. 36, p. 134.
See Burton, Div. of ‘Christ, pp. 4—12.

ς e.g. 6.1, p. 229: Oviris (Ber ἥμας φρονεῖν περὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
ὡς περὶ eae c. 9, p. 248: Χριστὸς 6 Κύριος, ὃ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὧν
μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα, ἐγένετο σὰρξ, καὶ οὕτως ἡμᾶς ἐκάλεσεν.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX. 193

Arrtictes 1—3,—Ireneus, lib. iv. ὁ. 58, § 7, p.273. ‘‘Ju-
dicabit autem et omnes eos qui sunt extra veritatem,
id est qui sunt extra ecclesiam ; ipse autem a nemine
judicabitur. Omnia enim ei constant: εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν
παντοκράτορα, ἐξ οὗ Ta πάντα, πίστις ὁλόκληρος" Kal εἰς τὸν
Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ
πάντα, καὶ τὰς οἰκονομίας αὐτοῦ, δι᾿ ὧν ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο ὁ
Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, πεισμονὴ βεβαία" καὶ εἰς τό Πνεῦμα τοῦ
Θεοῦ, qui prestat agnitionem veritatis, τὸ τὰς οἰκονο-
μίας Πατρός τε καὶ Ὑἱοῦ σκηνοβατοῦν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην γενεὰν
ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, καθὼς βούλεται ὁ Πατήρ."

Cyprian, Ep. 73, § 14, p. 206. ‘* Quomodo ergo
quidam dicunt foris extra Ecclesiam imo et contra
Ecclesiam, modo in nomine Jesu Christi, ubicumque
et quomodocumque gentilem baptizatum remissionem
peccatorum consequi posse, quando ipse Christus gen-
tes baptizari jubeat in plena et adunata Trinitate.”’

Articte 3.—Justin Martyr, Apol., c. 13, pp. 50, 51.
*AOeou μὲν ὡς οὐκ ἐσμὲν, τὸν δημιουργὸν τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς
σεβόμενοι.----τίς σωφρόνων οὐχ ὁμολογήσει; τὸν διδάσ-
καλόν τε τούτων γενόμενον Tuiv,—Yiov αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντως
Θεοῦ μαθόντες, καὶ ἐν δευτέρᾳ χώρᾳ ἔχοντες" Πνεῦμά τε
προφητικὸν ἐν τρίτῃ τάξει ὅτι μετὰ Adyou τιμῶμεν, ἀπο-
δείξομεν.

Theophilus, Ad Autolycum, lib. 11. ec. 15, p. 960.
‘Qoavtws καὶ ai τρεῖς ἡμέραι | πρὸ] τῶν φωστήρων yeyo-
νυῖαι τύποι εἰσιν τῆς Τριάδος, τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ λύγου
αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς σοφίας αὐτοῦ 4,

Cyprian, Ep. 73, 8.6, ». 200. ‘ Dominus post resur-
ἃ This passage is important, as the earliest in which the word

Τριὰς is used by any of the Fathers.

ο

194 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.

rectionem discipulos suos mittens quemadmodum bap-
tizare deberent instituit et docuit, dicens, Data est
mihi omnis potestas in celo et in terra. Ite ergo et
docete gentes omnes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris,
et ΜΙ, et Spiritus Sancti. Insinuat Trinitatem,
cujus sacramento gentes baptizarentur.”’

Dionysius Rom., adv. Sabellium, p. 377. Οὕτω yap
ἂν καὶ ἡ θεία Τριὰς, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον κήρυγμα τῆς μοναρχίας

διασώζοιτο.

Artictes 4, 5.—Justin Martyr, Dial. ὁ. Tryph., § 128,
p.221. Καὶ ὅτι δύναμις αὕτη, ἣν καὶ Θεὸν καλεῖ 6 προφητικὸς
λόγος, ὡς διὰ πολλῶν ὡσαύτως ἀποὶ έδεικται, καὶ ἄγγελον,
οὐ, ὡς τὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς ὀνόματι μόνον ἀριθμεῖται, ἀλλὰ καὶ,
> a , > , hee) - ΄ ‘ ,
ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν τι ἐστί, Kal ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις διὰ βραχέων

‘ , > , > MN A , ’ -

τὸν λόγον ἐξήτασα, εἰπὼν τὴν δύναμιν ταύτην γεγεννῆσθαι
ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ κατὰ ἀπο-
τομήν, ὡς ἀπομερ'ζομένης τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας, ὁποῖα τὰ
2» , ΄ ‘ , > \ > RY Je) a ‘
ἄλλα πάντα μεριζόμενα καὶ τεμνόμενα ov τὰ αὐτά ἐστιν ἃ καὶ
‘ “ 4 , a / ‘ «ς
πρὶν τμηθῆναι" καὶ παραδείγματος χάριν παρειλήφειν τὰ ὡς
ἀπὸ πυρὸς ἀναπτόμενα πυρὰ ἕτερα ὁρῶμεν, οὐδὲν ἐλαττου-
μένου ἐκείνου, ἐξ οὗ avipOy at πολλὰ δύνανται, ἀλλὰ
ταὐτοῦ μένοντος.

Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ., c. 10, p. 287. Τίς
οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι, λέγοντας Θεὸν Πατέρα καὶ Yiov Θεὸν
‘ “ a i ϑ. - \ A > - © ,
καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει
δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει διαίρεσιν, ἀκούσας ἀθέου

μ ὴ ῇ ρεσιν, a ς ἀθέους
καλουμένους ;

Ib., ὁ. 12, p. 289. Εἰδέναι... τίς ἡ τοῦ Παιδὸς πρὸς
τὸν Πατέρα ἑνότης, τίς ἡ τοῦ Πατρὸς πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν κοι-
[ὰ i \ a , € ΄“ ΄ με Ν ,
νωνία, τί τὸ ΤΙνεῦμα, τίς ἡ τῶν τοσούτων ἕνωσις, καὶ διαίρεσιν

, - ’ A “
ἑνουμένων, τοῦ Πνεύματος, τοῦ Παιδὸς, τοῦ Πατρός.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER ΙΧ. 195

Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, c.2, p.501. ‘* Unicum
Deum non alias putat credendum, quam si ipsum
eundemque et Patrem Filium et Spiritum Sanctum
dicat ; quasi non sic quoque unus sit omnia, dum ex
uno omnia, per substantiz scilicet unitatem, et nihil-
ominus custodiatur ceconomiz sacramentum, que
unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens, Patrem
et Filum et Spiritum Sanctum: tres autem non
statu sed gradu; nec substantia sed forma; nec po-
testate sed specie ; unius autem substantix, et unius
status, et unius potestatis.”’

Ib., cc. 11, 12; p.506. “His itaque paucis tamen
manifeste distinctio Trinitatis exponitur. Est enim
ipse qui pronuntiat Spiritus, et Pater ad quem pro-
nuntiat, et Filius de quo pronuntiat. Sic et cetera
quee nune ad Patrem de Filio, vel ad Filium, nune ad
Filium de Patre, vel ad Patrem, nunc ad Spiritum
pronuntiantur ; unamquamque personam in sua pro-
prietate constituunt.

‘« Si te adhuc numerus scandalizat Trinitatis, quasi
non connexe in unitate simplici, interrogo quomodo
unicus et singularis pluraliter loquitur? Faciamus
hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram ;
cum debuerit dixisse, Faciam hominem ad imagi-
nem et similitudinem meam, utpote unicus et sin-
gularis ?”

Hip polytus, ὁ. Noétum, c.7, vol. 11. p11. Ἐὰν δὲ
λέγει, αὐτὸς εἶπεν, ᾿Εγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἔσμεν, ἐπιστανέτω
τὸν νοῦν καὶ μανθανέτω, ὅτι οὐκ εἶπεν ὅτι ᾿Εγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ
ἕν εἶμι, ἀλλὰ ἕν ἐσμεν. Τὸ γάρ ἐσμεν οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ἑνὸς λέγεται,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ δύο πρόσωπα ἔδειξεν, δύναμιν δὲ μίαν.

Origen, on St. John i. 3, tom. ii. § 6, vol. iv. p. 60.

196 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.

Ἔσται δέ τις καὶ τρίτος mapa τοὺς δύο, τόν τε διὰ τοῦ
Λόγου παρα)εχύμενον τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον γεγονέναι, καὶ
\ 3. ae 9: Ἐν 9 ς ΄, , ν
τὸν ἀγέννητον αὐτὸν εἰναι ὑπολαμβάνοντα, δογματίζων μηδὲ
> , 9 , ς , A c , » c 4
οὐσίαν τινα ἰδίαν ὑφεστάναι τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἑτέραν
παρὰ τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν Yidy... . ἡμεῖς μέντοιγε τρεῖς
ὑποστάσεις πειθόμενοι τυγχάνειν, τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὸν Υἷόν,

\ Loo a ἐν Ey ae we, a \
kai τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ ἀγέννητον μηδὲν ἕτερον τοῦ Πατρὸς
εἶναι πιστεύοντες, ὡς εὐσεβέστερον καὶ ἀληθὲς προσιέμεθα
τὸ, πάντων διὰ τοῦ Λόγου γενομένων, τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα
πάντων εἶναι τιμιώτερον, καὶ τάξει πάντων τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ
Πατρὸς διὰ Χριστοῦ γεγεννημένων. Καὶ τάχα αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ
αἰτία τοῦ μὴ καὶ αὐτουιὸν χρηματίζειν τοῦ Θεοῦ, μόνου τοῦ
Μονογενοῦς φύσει Ὑἱοῦ ἀρχῆθεν τυγχάνοντος, οὗ χρήζειν
ἔοικε τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, διακονοῦντος αὐτοῦ τῇ ὑποστάσει, οὐ

, > \ 35 > By ‘ \ 3 ‘ \ ‘
μόνον εἰς TO εἶναι, ἀλλὰ καὶ σοφὸν εἶναι καὶ λογικὸν καὶ
δίκαιον, καὶ πᾶν ὁτιποτοῦν χρὴ αὐτὸ νοεῖν τυγχάνειν, κατὰ
μετοχὴν τῶν προειρημένων ἡμῖν Χριστοῦ ἐπινοιῶν.

Novatian 5, de Trinitate, ec. 21, p. 720. Quis enim
non secundam Filii post Patrem agnoscat esse per-
sonam, cum legat dictum a Patre consequenter ad
Filium, Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudi-
nem nostram.”

Dionysius of Alexandria, Hx Elencho et Apol., c. 6,
p- 98. Ἕν εἰσιν, ὄντες δύο᾽ οὕτω yap καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ καὶ 6
Υἱὸς ἕν καὶ ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἐλέχθησαν εἶναι.

Ib., ο. 8, p. 94. οἱ δὲ οὐκ ἴσασιν ὅτι μήτε ἀλλοτρίωται
Πατὴρ Υἱοῦ ἣ ΠΠατήρ᾽ προκαταρκτικὸν γάρ ἐστι τῆς συναφείας

A A ‘
τὸ Ovopa’ οὔτε ὁ Υἱὸς ἀπῴκισται Tov Πατρός. Ἣ yap Πατὴρ

e The testimony of Novatian is considered by Dr. Burton as
valuable, since, though heretical in matters of discipline and prac-
tice, his opinions in matters of doctrine wore always held to be
sound.—Burton, ‘‘ Divinity of Christ,” p. 366.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX. 197

προσηγορία δηλοῖ τὴν κοινωνίαν" ἔν τε ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτῶν
ἐστι τὸ Πνεῦμα, μήτε τοῦ πέμποντος μήτε τοῦ φέροντος
δυνάμενον στέρεσθαι. Πῶς οὖν ὁ τούτοις χρώμενος τοῖς
ὀνόμασι, μεμερίσθαι ταῦτα καὶ ἀφωρίσθαι παντελῶς ἀλλήλων

»
οἰομαι;

Articte 6.—Clemens Alex., Pedagog., lib. iii. ο. 12,
p- 811. Aivodvras εὐχαριστεῖν τῷ μόνῳ Πατρὶ καὶ Yio,
Υἱῷ καὶ Πατρὶ, παιδαγωγῷ καὶ διδασκάλῳ Υἱῷ, σὺν καὶ τῴ

ἘΠῚ ἢ)

, , mye > τ \ ΄ » ἃ \ ,
ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, πάντα τῷ ἑνὶ, ἐν ᾧ Ta πάντα, Ov ὃν Ta πάντα

>

ἕν, Ov ὃν τὸ ἀεί.

ArTIcLE 8.—Irenzus, lib. iil. 0. 8, § 3, p. 189...“ Quoniam
autem ipse omnia fecit libere et quemadmodum voluit,
ait iterum David: Deus autem noster in ccelis sursum
et in terra, omnia quecunque voluit, fecit. Altera
autem sunt, que constituta sunt, ab eo qui constituit,
et quee facta sunt, ab eo qui fecit. Ipse enim infec-
tus, et sine initio et sine fine et nullius indigens, ipse
sibi sufficiens, et adhuc reliquis omnibus, ut sint, hoc
ipsum preestans; quee vero ab eo sunt facta initium
sumpserunt. Queecunque autem initium sumpserunt,
et dissolutionem possunt percipere et subjecta sunt et
indigent ejus, qui se fecit ; necesse est omnimodo, ut
differens vocabulum habeant apud eos etiam, qui vel
modicum sensum in discernendo talia habent : ita ut
is quidem, qui omnia fecerit, cum Verbo suo juste
dicatur Deus et Dominus solus ; que autem facta sunt,
non jam ejusdem vocabuli participabilia esse, neque
juste id vocabulum sumere debere, quod est creatoris.””

Id., lib. i. 6. 18, § 8, p. 182. Speaking of the
absurd doctrines of some of the Gnostics, Ireneus
goes on to say, “‘ Decentiora autem magis quam hi,

198 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.

qui generationem prolativi hominum verbi transferunt
in Dei eternum Verbum, et prolationis initium do-
nantes et genesin, quemadmodum et suo verbo. Et
in quo distabit Dei Verbum, immo magis ipse Deus,
cum sit Verbum, a verbo hominum, si eamdem habu-
erit ordinationem et emissionem generationis.”’

Articir 9.—Ib., lib. ili. ὁ. 16, § 6, p. 206. ‘In omni-
bus autem est et homo, plasmatio Dei; et hominem
ergo in semetipsum recapitulans est, invisibilis visi-
bilis factus, et incomprehensibilis factus comprehen-
sibilis, et impassibilis passibilis, et Verbum homo.”

Clemens Alex., Strom., lib. vil. c. 2, p. 831. οὐ
yap ἐξίσταταί ποτε τῆς αὐτοῦ περιωπῆς ὁ Yids τοῦ Θεοῦ"
οὐ μεριζόμενος. οὐκ ἀποτεμνόμενος, οὐ μεταβαίνων ἐκ τόπου
εἰς τόπον, πάντῃ δὲ ὧν πάντοτε, καὶ μηδαμῇ περιεχόμενος.
ὅλος νοῦς, ὅλος φῶς πατρῷον, ὅλος ὀφθαλμὸς, πάντα ὁρῶν,
πάντα ἀκούων, εἰδὼς πάντα.

Id., Pedagog., lib. 1. ο. 6, p. 129. Ω θαύματος μυσ-
τικοῦ" εἷς μὲν ὁ τῶν ὅλων Πατήρ᾽ εἷς δὲ καὶ ὁ τῶν ὅλων

; a Ave a
Λόγος" kat τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἕν, καὶ TO αὐτὸ πανταχοῦ.

ArticLe 10.—Ignatius, Hp. ad Polycarp, ¢. 3, p. 490.
Tov ὑπὲρ καιρὸν προσδόκα, τὸν ἄχρονον, τὸν ἀόρατον, τὸν δι᾽
ἡμᾶς ὁρατὸν, τὸν ἀψηλάφητον, τὸν ἀπαθῆ, τὸν Ov ἡμᾶς
παθητὸν, τὸν κατὰ πάντα τρόπον Sv ἡμᾶς ὑπομείναντα.

Justin Martyr, Ep. ad Diognet., ce. 11, p. 240.
Οὗτος 6 am ἀρχῆς; ὁ καινὸς φανεὶς . .. οὗτος 6 del, σήμερον
Υἱὸς λογισθείς.

Treneus, lib. iv. ὁ. 20, § 3, p. 2ὅ8, “ Quoniam
Verbum, id est Filius, semper cum Patre erat, per
multa demonstravimus. Quoniam autem et Sapien-

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX. 199

tia, que est Spiritus, erat apud eum ante omnem
constitutionem, per Salomonem ait.”

Origen, Comment. in Genes., tom.i. vol. ii. p.1. Οὐ
yap ὁ Θεὸς Πατὴρ εἶναι ἤρξατο, κωλυόμενος ὡς οἱ γινόμενοι
πατέρες ἄνθρωποι, ὑπὸ τοῦ μὴ δύνασθαί πω πατέρες εἶναι"
εἰ γὰρ ἀεὶ τέλειος ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ πάρεστιν αὐτῷ δύναμις τοῦ
Πατέρα αὐτὸν εἶναι, καὶ καλὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι Πατέρα τοῦ τοιού-
του Ὑἱοῦ, τί ἀναβάλλεται, καὶ ἑαυτὸν τοῦ καλοῦ στηρίσκει.
καὶ, ὡς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ἐξ οὗ δύναται Πατὴρ εἶναι Ὑἱοῦ ; τὸ
αὐτὸ μέντοιγε καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος λεκτέον.

Id., de Principis, lib. iv. § 28, p.190. “ Hoe au-
tem ipsum quod dicimus, quia nunquam fuit quando
non fuit, cum venia audiendum est. Nam et hee ipsa
nomina temporalis yocabuli significantiam gerunt, id
est quando vel nunquam; supra omne autem tempus,
et supra omnia seecula, et supra omnem eternitatem
intelligenda sunt ea que de Patre et Filio et Spiritu
Sancto dicuntur. Hee enim sola Trinitas est que
omnem sensum intelligentiz non solum temporalis
verum etiam eternalis excedit. Cztera vero que
sunt extra Trinitatem in szeculis et temporibus me-
tienda sunt !.”

Artictes 15—17.—Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christ., ¢.
24, p. 802. ‘Qs yap Θεὸν φαμὲν, καὶ Ὑἱὸν τὸν Λόγον
αὐτοῦ καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἑνούμενα μὲν κατὰ δύναμιν, τὸν
Πατέρα, τὸν Υἱὸν, τὸ Πνεῦμα, ὅτι νοῦς, λόγος, σοφία, Υἱὸς

a ‘ ἈΚ} 55:8 ε a 3. ἢ \ ἢ a
tov Πατρὸς, kat ἀπόρῤῥοια, ws φῶς ἀπὸ πυρὸς, TO Πνεῦμα.

Tertullian, adv. Praz., ὁ. 13, p.507. ‘* Deos om-

f Passages quoted in Latin from this treatise must be taken
for what they are worth, being found only in the Latin translation
of Rufinus, which is not to be implicitly relied upon.—See Burton,
‘¢ Divinity of Christ,” pp. 284, 285.

200 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.

nino non dicam, nec Dominos: sed apostolum se-
quar, ut si pariter nominandi fuerint Pater et Filius,
Deum Patrem appellem, et Jesum Christum Dominum
nominem. Solum autem Christum potero Deum
dicere, sicut idem Apostolus, Hv quibus Christus,
qui est, inquit, Deus super omnia, benedictus in evum
omne.””

Hippolytus, c. Moétum, ο. 12, vol. ii. p.14. Οὐκοῦν
ἔνσαρκον Λόγον θεωροῦμεν, Πατέρα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ νοοῦμεν, Υἱῷ
δὲ πιστεύομεν, Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ προσκυνοῦμεν.

Origen, in Psalm. cxxii. 2, vol. ii. p. 821. Aodrou
κυρίων, Πατρὸς καὶ Yiov, πνεῦμα καὶ σῶμα; παιδίσκη δὲ
κυρίας τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἡ ψυχή. Τὰ δὲ τρία Κύριος
ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστίν᾽ οἱ γὰρ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

14., ἐγ) Joan., tom, xxxii. vol. iv. p. 429. Πρῶτον
πάντων πιστεῦσον ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν 6 Θεὸς ὁ τὰ πάντα κτίσας,
καὶ καταρτίσας, καὶ ποιήσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ
πάντα. Χρὴ δὲ καὶ πιστεύειν ὅτι Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς,
καὶ πάσῃ τῇ περὶ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, καὶ τὴν ἀνθρω-

ἣ ΄ ‘ \ εἰ ’ -
πότητα, ἀληθείᾳ" δεῖ δὲ καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πιστεύειν Πνεῦμα.

ΑἸΒΤΊΟΙΕ 19.—Tertullian, adv. Praz., c. 18, p. 507.
‘* Duos quidem definimus, Patrem et Filium, et jam
tres cum Spiritu Sancto.... Duos tamen Deos et
duos Dominos nunquam ex ore nostro proferimus ;
non quasi non et Pater Deus, et Filius Deus, et
Spiritus Sanctus Deus, et Deus unusquisque.”

ArticLe 20.—TIrenzeus, lib. 111. c. 8, ὃ ὃ, p. 183. ‘ Ipse
enim infectus et sine initio et sine fine et nullius
indigens, ipse 5101 sufficiens et adhuc reliquis omni-
bus, ut sint, hoc ipsum prestans,”

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX. 201

ArticLe 21.—Justin Martyr, Dial., ο. 61, p. 157. Map-
τύριον δὲ καὶ ἄλλο ὑμῖν ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν δώσω, ὅτι ἀρχὴν
πρὸ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ Θεὸς γεγέννηκε δύναμιν τινὰ
ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ λογικὴν, ἥτις καὶ δόξα Κυρίου ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος
τοῦ ἁγίου καλεῖται.

Ib., ο. 129, p. 222. Νοεῖτε, ὦ ἀκροαταί, εἴ ye καὶ τὸν
νοῦν προσέχετε, καὶ ὅτι γεγεννῆσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς τοῦτο
τὸ γέννημα πρὸ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν κτισμάτων ὁ λύγος
ἐδήλου, καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον τοῦ γεννῶντος ἀριθμῷ ἕτερόν
ἐστι, πᾶς ὁστισοῦν ὁμολογήσειε.

Treneus, lib. ii. c. 28, § 6, p. 158. “51 quis itaque
nobis dixerit: Quomodo ergo Filius prolatus a Patre
est? dicimus ei, quia prolationem istam, sive genera-
tionem, sive nuncupationem, sive adapertionem, aut
quolibet quis nomine vocaverit generationem ejus 1n-
enarrabilem exsistentem nemo novit; non Valenti-
nus, non Marcion, neque Saturninus, neque Basilides,
neque angeli, neque archangeli, neque principes, ne-
que potestates, nisi solus qui generavit Pater et qui
natus est Filius.”

Tertullian, Apol., ο. 21, p.19. “ Hune ex Deo pro-
latum didicimus, et prolatione generatum, et idcirco
Filium Dei, et Deum dictum ex unitate substantie.”’

Dionysius Alex., ex Llench. et Apol., c. 18, p. 97.
Zon ἐκ ζωῆς ἐγεννήθη, καὶ ὥσπερ ποταμὸς ἀπὸ πηγῆς
ἔῤῥευσε, καὶ ἀπὸ φωτὸς ἀσβέστου λαμπρὸν φῶς ἀνήφθη.

Dionysius Rom., adv. Sabell., p. 8716. Πολλαχοῦ
δὲ τῶν θείων λογίων γεγεννῆσθαι ἀλλ᾽ οὐ γεγονέναι τὸν υἱὸν
λεγόμενον εὕροι τις ἄν" ὑφ᾽ ὧν καταφανῶς ἐλέγχονται τὰ
ψεύδη περὶ τῆς τοῦ Κυρίου γεννήσεως ὑπολαμβάνοντες, οἱ
ποίησιν αὐτοῦ τὴν θείαν καὶ ἄῤῥητον γέννησιν λέγειν TOA-

μῶντες.

2 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.

Articte 22.—Tertullian, adv. Prax., c. 4, p. 502.

““Ceterum, qui Filium non aliunde deduco, sed de
substantia Patris, nihil facientem sine Patris volun-
tate, omnem a Patre consecutum potestatem, quo-
modo possum de fide destruere monarchiam, quam
a Patre Filio traditam in Filio servo? Hoe mihi
et in tertium gradum dictum sit, quia Spiritum non
aliunde puto, quam a Patre per Filium.”

Ib., c. 8, p. 504. ‘ Omne quod prodit ex aliquo,
secundum sit ejus necesse est de quo prodit, non ideo
tamen est separatum. Secundus autem ubi est, duo
sunt. Et tertius ubi est, tres sunt. Tertius enim
est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice
fructus ex fructice. Et tertius a fonte, rivus ex
flumine. Et tertius a sole, apex ex radio. Nihil
tamen a matrice alienatur, a qua proprietates suas
ducit. Ita Trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus
a Patre decurrens, et monarchiz nihil obstrepit, et

ceconomic statum protegit.”
«.

AxticLtE 24.—Tertullian, adv. Hermogenem, ο, 7, p. 235.

“ Divinitas autem gradum non habet, utpote unica.”

Origen, de Prinewp., lib. 1. ¢. 8, § 7, vol. i. p.. 638.
“Ne quis sane existimet nos ex eo quod diximus Spi-
ritum Sanctum solis sanctis prestari, Patris vero et
Filii beneficia vel inoperationes pervenire ad bonos et
malos, justos et injustos, preetulisse per hoc Patri et
Filio Spiritum Sanctum, vel majorem ejus per hoc
asserere dignitatem ; quod utique valde inconsequens
est. Proprictatem namque gratiz ejus operisque de-
scripsimus. Porro autem nihil in Trinitate majus
minusve dicendum est, quum unius Divinitatis fons

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER ΙΧ. 203

Verbo ac Ratione sua teneat universa, Spiritu vero
oris sui que digna sunt sanctificatione, sanctificet.”’

ArticLe 25.— Origen, ὁ. Celsum, lib. viii. ὁ. 12, vol. i.
Ῥ. 751. Θρησκεύομεν οὖν τὸν Πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ
τὸν Yiov τὴν ἀληθείαν, ὄντα δύο τῇ ὑποστάσει πράγματα,
ἕν δὲ τῇ ὁμονοίᾳ, καὶ τῇ συμφωνίᾳ, καὶ τῇ ταυτότητι τοῦ
βουλήματος.

Tertullian, de Oratione, c. 10, p. 189. “Νρο ab ira
solummodo, sed omni omnino confusione animi libera
debet esse orationis intentio, de tali spiritu emissa,
qualis est Spiritus, ad quem mittitur. Neque enim
agnosci poterit a Spiritu Sancto spiritus inquina-
tus; aut tristis a leto, aut impeditus a libero.”’

ArticLe 27—29.—Justin Martyr, Dial., ο. 71, p. 169.
Καὶ ὅτι πολλὰς γραφὰς τέλεον περιεῖλον ἀπὸ τῶν ἐξηγήσεων
τῶν γεγενημένων ὑπὸ τῶν παρὰ Πτολεμαίῳ γεγενημένων
πρεσβυτέρων, ἐξ ὧν διαῤῥήδην οὗτος αὐτὸς 6 σταυρωθεὶς
ὅτι Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος καὶ σταυρούμενος καὶ ἀποθνήσκων
κεκηρυγμένος ἀποδείκνυται, εἰδέναι ὑμᾶς βούλομαι.

Ib., c. 87, p. 184. Καὶ ὁμολογήσας ταῦτα. .. εἰς
Χριστὸν εἰρῆσθαι, καὶ Θεὸν αὐτὸν προὔπάρχοντα λέγεις, καὶ
κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντα αὐτὸν λέγεις διὰ
τῆς παρθένου γεγεννῆσθαι ἄνθρωπον.

Tatian, Orat. ὁ. Grecos, ὁ. 21, p. 262. Οὐ γὰρ
μωραίνομεν, οὐδὲ λήρους ἀπαγγέλλομεν, Θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπου
μορφῇ γεγονέναι καταγγέλλοντες.

Trenzeus, 110. 1. ὁ. 10, § 1, p. 48. Καὶ εἰς Πνεῦμα
ἅγιον, τὸ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν κεκηρυχὸς τὰς οἰκονομίας, καὶ
τὰς ἐλεύσεις, καὶ τὴν ἐκ παρθένου γέννησιν, καὶ τὸ πάθος,

lol ΕΣ ‘ > ‘
kal τὴν ἔγερσιν ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ τὴν ἔνσαρκον εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς

904 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.

ἀνάληψιν τοῦ ἠγαπημένου Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν,
καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς παρουσίαν
αὐτοῦ.

Clemens Alex., Cohort. ad Gentes, ο. 1, p. 7. Νῦν
δὴ ἀπεφάνη ἀνθρώποις αὐτὸς οὗτος 6 Λόγος, ὁ μόνος ἄμφω,
Θεός τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος.

Tertullian, de Carne Christi, ὁ. 5, p.310. “Non
diceretur homo Christus sine carne; nec hominis
filius, sine aliquo parente homine: sicut nee Deus
sine Spiritu Dei; nec Dei filius sine Deo patre.”

Hippolytus, de Antichristo, c. 4, vol. 1. p. 6. Ὃ
Λόγος Tod Θεοῦ, ἄσαρκος ὧν, ἐνεδύσατο τὴν ἁγίαν σάρκα
ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου, ὡς νυμφίος ἱμάτιον ἐξυφάνας ἑανῷ
ἐν τῷ σταυρικῷ πάθει, ὅπως συγκεράσας τὸ θνητὸν ἡμῶν
σῶμα τῇ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμει, καὶ μίξας τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ φθαρ-
τὸν καὶ τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῷ ἰσχυρῷ, σώσῃ τὸν ἀπολλύμενον
ἄνθρωπον.

Origen, ὁ. Celsum, lib. i. c. 60, vol. i, p. 375.
Φέροντες μὲν Sapa, ἃ (ἵν᾽ οὕτως ὀνομάσω) συνθέτῳ τινὶ ἐκ
Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου θνητοῦ προσήνεγκαν σύμβολα μὲν, ὡς
βασιλεῖ τὸν χρυσὸν, ὡς δὲ τεθνηξομένῳ τὴν σμύρναν, ὡς δὲ
Θεῷ τὸν λιβανωτόν.

Dionys. Alex., ὁ. Paul. Samos., p. 214. Τὸν φύσει
Κύριον, καὶ Λόγον τοῦ Πατρὸς, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐποίησεν ὁ
Πατὴρ, καὶ ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρὶ εἰρημένον ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων

πατέρων ©,

ArticLE 80.—Ignatius, Epist. ad Smyrn., ¢. 38, p. 452.
Mera δὲ τὴν ἀνάστασιν συνέφαγεν αὐτοῖς καὶ συνέπιεν ὡς
σαρκικὸς, καίπερ πνευματικῶς ἡνωμένος τῷ Πατρί.

g This passage is remarkable, not only as containing the word
ὁμοούσιος, but as shewing that even then it was no new word.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX. 205

Melito, de Incarnat. Christi, p.121. Θεὸς yap dv
ὁμοῦ Te καὶ ἄνθρωπος τέλειος ὁ αὐτὸς, Tas δύο αὐτοῦ οὐσίας
ἐπιστώσατο ἡμῖν᾽ τὴν μὲν Θεότητα αὐτοῦ διὰ τῶν σημείων
ἐν τῇ τριετίᾳ τῇ μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα, τὴν δὲ ἀνθρωπότητα
αὐτοῦ, ἐν τοῖς τριάκοντα χρόνοις τοῖς πρὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος"
ἐν οἷς διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀπεκρύβη τὰ σημεῖα τῆς
αὐτοῦ Θεύτητος" καίπερ Θεὸς ἀληθὴς προαιώνιος ὑπάρχων.

Trenzeus, lib. ii. 6. 21, § 8, p. 217. ““Οποᾶ autem
non consentiet nequitie, ut eligat bonum, proprium
hoe est Dei, uti non per hoc, quod manducabit buty-
rum et mel, nude solummodo eum hominem intelli-
geremus, neque rursus per nomen Emmanuel sine
carne eum Deum suspicaremur.”

Hippolytus, ce. Beronem et Helicem, ὁ. 1, vol. i.
Pp. 226. Θεὸν ἄπειρον ὁμοῦ καὶ περιγραπτὸν ἄνθρωπον ὄντα
τε καὶ νοούμενον, τὴν οὐσίαν ἑκατέρου τελείως τελείαν ἔχοντα.

Origen, ὁ. Celsum, lib. 111. c. 29, νο]. 1. p. 465.
Περὶ δὲ τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ εἴποιμεν ἂν, ἐπεὶ συμφέρον ἢν τῷ τῶν
ἀνθρώπων γένει παραδέξασθαι αὐτὸν ὡς υἱὸν Θεοῦ, Θεὸν
ἐληλυθότα ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ ψυχῇ καὶ σώματι.

Dionys. Alex., de Martyris, c. 9, p. 89. Τὸ μέντοι
ἐξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι τὴν ψυχήν μου καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν
λαβεῖν αὐτὴν, ἐν τούτοις δηλοῖ ἑκούσιον εἶναι τὸ πάθος" καὶ
ἔτι, ὡς ἄλλη μὲν ἡ τιθεμένη καὶ λαμβανομένη ψυχὴ, ἄλλη
δὲ ἡ τιθεῖσα καὶ λαμβάνουσα θεύτης.

Methodius, Sympos., Or. 3, p. 79. Τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι
τὸν Χριστὸν, ἄνθρωπον ἀκράτῳ θεότητι Kat τελείᾳ πεπλη-

ρωμένον, καὶ Θεὸν ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ κεχωρημένον.

ArticLE 32.—Jenatius, ad Ephes., ¢. 7, p. 288. Εἷς
ἰατρός ἐστιν, σαρκικός τε καὶ πνευματικὸς, γεννητὸς καὶ

’ , > ΩΝ , A > > , ‘ >
ἀγέννητος, ἐν σαρκὶ γενόμενος Θεὺς, ἐν ἀθανάτῳ ζωὴ ἀλη-

206 APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX.

θινὴ. καὶ ἐκ Μαρίας καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ, πρῶτον παθητὸς καὶ τότε
ἀπαθής.

Origen, ὁ. Celsum, lib. vi. c. 47, vol. 1. p. 669.
Οὐκ εἰσὶ δύο ἡ ψυχὴ Tod ᾿Ιησοῦ πρὸς τὸν πάσης κτίσεως

πρωτότοκον Θεὸν Λόγον.

ΔΈΤΙΟΙΒ 33.—Tertullian, adv. Prax., c. 27, p. 516.
“De hoe querendum, quomodo Sermo caro sit fac-
tus; utrumne quasi transfiguratus in carne, an indu-
tus carnem ? Immo indutus. Ceterum, Deum immu-
tabilem et informabilem credi necesse est, ut eter-
num. ‘Transfiguratio autem interemptio est pristini.
Omne enim quodecunque transfiguratur in aliud, de-
sinit esse quod fuerat, et incipit esse quod non erat.
Deus autem neque desinit esse, neque aliud potest
esse.”

Origen, ὁ. Celsum, lib. iii. 6. 41, vol. i. p. 474.
Ὅμως δὲ ἴστωσαν οἱ ἐγκαλοῦντες, ὃτι ὃν μὲν νομίζομεν, καὶ
πεπείσμεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεὸν καὶ Υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὁ
αὐτολόγος ἐστὶ καὶ 7) αὐτοσοφία καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια" τὸ δὲ
θνητὸν αὐτοῦ σῶμα, καὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐν αὐτῷ ψυχὴν, τῇ
πρὸς ἐκεῖνον οὐ μόνον κοινωνίᾳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνα-
κράσει, τὰ μέγιστά φαμεν προσειληφέναι. καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου

, , > A ΄
θεότητος κεκοινωνηκότα εἰς Θεὸν μεταβεβηκέναι.

Artictze 84.—Tertullian, adv. Praz., c. 27, p. 516.
‘“¢Quia neque Sermo aliud quam Deus, neque caro
aliud quam homo.... Videmus duplicem statum
non confusum, sed conjunctum in una persona, Deum
et hominem Jesum.”’

Articte 36.—Id., de Anima, ¢.55, p. 804. “ Christus
Deus, quia et homo, mortuus secundum scripturas,

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IX. 207

et sepultus secus easdem, huic quoque legi satisfecit,
forma humane mortis apud inferos functus; nec ante
ascendit in sublimiora ccelorum, quam descendit in
inferiora terrarum, ut illic patriarchas et prophetas
compotes sui faceret.”

Articte 37.—Origen, 7x Psalm. xlvii. 6, vol. ii. p. 715.
Ὥσπερ ὁ Κύριος ἐλεύσεται ἐν φωνῇ ἀγγέλου, καὶ ἐν σάλ-
Tlyyt Θεοῦ καταβήσεται ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ, οὕτως ἀνέβη ὁ Θεὸς

ἐν ἀλαλαγμῷ.

CHAPTER X.

A CoMMENTARY ON THE ATHANASIAN CREED 3.

1. WHOSOEVER will be saved, before all things it τς
necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith.

By the words, before all things, is meant in the first
place. Faith goes before practice; and is therefore
first in order, though practice may be, comparatively,
more considerable, and first in value, as the end is
above the means.

2. Which Faith except every one do keep whole” and
undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

Which Faith, that is, the Catholic Faith before spoken
of, which is another name for the true and right faith,
as taught in Scripture ; called Catholic, or Universal, as

a In the Primer of 1539, and another of 1555, where the version
is made from the Latin, and joined with the Popish Service of that
time, the English title of the Creed was, “The Symbole or Crede
of the great Doctour Athanasius, dayly red in the Church.”

In King Edward’s Prayer-book, A.D. 1549, it is barely intituled,
‘* This Confession of our Christian Faith ;’ and it was ordered to be
song or sayed upon six feasts in the year. At the revisal of the
Common Prayer, in 1552, it was appointed to be used on several
feasts in the year, the whole number thirteen. But the title still
continued the same till the last review under Charles the Second,
when were added thereto, ‘‘ commonly calleu the Creed of St. Atha-
pasius:” from which time the running title has been ‘‘ St. Athana-
sius’s Creed,” as before Quicunque vult, in our Prayer- Books.

> In King Edward’s Prayer-books, and so down to the year 1627,
holy was read for what is now whole; which, I suppose, was in-
tended for wholly, as one may reasonably imagine from Queen
Elizabeth’s of 1561, where it is wholy, and from the metrical ver-
sion, which plainly meant wholly, by holy, answering to unde-
filedly ; and it is certain that holy was the ancient spelling for
what we now write wholly.

ON THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 209

being held by the Universal Church of Christ, against
which the gates of hell shall never prevail. The mean-
ing, then, is, that every one is obliged, under pain of
damnation, to preserve, as far as in him lies, the true
and right Faith, in opposition to those that endeavour
to corrupt it either by taking from it or adding to it.
That men shall perish eternally for unbelief, for reject-
ing the Faith in the lump, cannot be doubted, when it
is expressly said (Mark xvi. 16), “He that believeth
not shall be damned.’”’ And as to rejecting any parti-
cular branch, or Article of it, it must of consequence
be a sin against the whole; against truth, and peace,
and therefore damnable in its own nature, as all wilful
sins are without repentance. As to the allowances to
be made for invincible ignorance, prejudice, or other
unavoidable infirmities, as they will be pleadable in
the case of any other sin, so may they, and will they
also be pleadable in this; but it was foreign to the
purpose of the Creed to take notice of it in this case
particularly, when it is common to all cases of lke
nature, and is always supposed and understood, though
not specially mentioned.

3. And the Catholic faith is this; that we worship
one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.

One of the principal branches of the Catholic Faith,
and which is of nearest concernment (since our worship
depends upon it, and the main body of the Christian
religion is bound up in it), is the doctrine of a Trinity
in Unity, of three Persons and one God, recommended
in our baptism as the object of our faith, hope, and
worship. He that takes upon him to corrupt or
deprave this most fundamental part of a Christian’s

P

210 A COMMENTARY ON

faith cannot be innocent, it being his bounden duty
to maintain and preserve it, as he will answer it
another day.

4. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the
substance.

Here would be no need of these particular cautions,
or critical terms, in relation to this point, had men
been content with the plain primitive faith in its native
simplicity. But as there have been a set of men, called
Sabellians, who have erroneously taught that the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost are all one Person, who was incar-
nate, and suffered, and rose again,—making the Father
(and Holy Ghost) to have suffered, as well as the Son
(from thence called Patripassians)—hence it becomes
necessary to caution every pious Christian against con-
founding the persons as those men have done: and as
there have been others, particularly the Arians, who
have pretended, very falsely, that the three Persons are
three substances, and of different kinds, divided from
each other, one being before the other, existing when
the other two were not, as also being present where the
other two are not present; these false and dangerous
tenets having been spread abroad, it is become neces-
sary to give a caution against dividing the substance,
as these have done, very much to the detriment of
sobriety and truth.

5. Lor there is one Person of the Father, another of
the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.

The Sabellians, therefore, were extremely to blame
in confounding the Persons, and running them into
one, taking away the distinction of Persons plainly
taught in Scripture.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. PAL

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost ἐδ all one, the glory equal, the mayesty
coeternal,

The Arians, therefore, were equally to blame for
dividing the substance and Godhead in the manner be-
fore hinted. To be a little more particular on this
head, we may go on to open and explain this Unity of
Godhead, equality of glory, and coeternity of majesty.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is
the Holy Ghost.

That is, as to their substance and Godhead, there is
no difference or inequality amongst them, though there
is a difference in respect of some personal acts and pro-
perties, as shall be observed in its place. In real dig-
nity and perfection they are equal aud undivided, as in
the instances here following.

8. The Father uncreate, the Son unereate, and the
Holy Ghost uncreate.

These three Persons were never brought into being
by the will of another; they are no creatures, nor
changeable, as creatures are; they are all infinitely re-
moved from dependence or precarious existence, one as
much as another, and every one as much as any one.
They exist in the highest and most emphatical sense of
existing, which is called necessary existence, opposed
to contingent or precarious existence. In a word,
every person must, and cannot but exist; and all
must exist together, having the same unchangeable
perfections.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehen-
sible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.

These words are not a just translation of the Latin

212 A COMMENTARY ON

original, though containing as true and just a proposi-
tion as the Latin words do. Jmmensus signifies omnt-
present, rather than tncomprehensible, in the modern
sense of incomprehensible. But if by incomprehensible
be understood, not to be comprehended within any
bounds, it will then answer to the Latin pretty nearly.
The translator here followed the Greek copy °, taking
perhaps the Creed to be the original language wherein
the Greek was written. However, some Latins have
understood by immensus, tncomprehensible*, in such
a sense as has been hinted.

10. Zhe Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy
Ghost eternal.

None of the Persons ever began to be, nor shall
ever cease to be; they always were, they always will
be, and must be; the same yesterday, to-day, and
for ever.

11. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one
Eternal.

Some account ought to be given of this manner of
speaking, because it often occurs in the Creed, and may
be thought most apt to offend the malicious, or to mis-

¢ There are two printed Greek copies, which read ἀκατάληπτος.
Stephens’s, first printed by Bryling, and Baifius’s, first printed by
Genebrard: which two copies are in the main one. Our transla-
tors, in 1548, could have seen none but Bryling’s, that is, Stephens’s
copy. The Constantinopolitan copy, published by Genebrard, reads
ἄπειρος ; the Palatine copy, by Felekman. ἄμετρος. The Saxon,
French, and old English versions, exactly follow the Latin original.
As does also the Primer of 1539, set forth by John Hilsey, Bishop
of Rochester ; and the other later one of 1555 by Cardinal Pole.
The first has immeasurable (where we have incomprehensible), the
other has without measure.

4 « Tmmensus Pater: non mole, sed potestate omnia concludente.
Vel immensus, id est, incomprehensibilis.”—Abelard, ὧν Symb.

Athanas., Ὁ. 382. (The page is numbered 368 by mistake, but it
should be 382).

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 213

lead the unwary. The way of speaking came in a little
after the middle of the fourth century, and then only
into the Latin Church; for the Greeks never used it,
but taught the same things under a different form of
expression. What Greeks and Latins both intended
was, that as the three Persons are one substance and one
God, so every Divine perfection and every substantial
attribute belonging to any one person is common to all;
and there is nothing peculiar to any one but the Divine
relations. To the Father, paternity and whatever it
implies or carries with it; to the Son, filiation; to the
Holy Ghost, procession. In this account, eternity,
immensity, omnipotence, and the like, being substan-
tial attributes, are common to all the Three Persons;
who have therefore one eternity, one immensity, one
omnipotence, and so on, as one substance and one God-
head. Thus far Greeks and Latins agreed both in doc-
trine and expression. But the Latins, building here-
upon, thought it very allowable to go a little farther
(which the Greeks did not), and to express the same
thing by saying of the three Persons, that they are one
eternal, one immense, one omnipotent, one holy, one un-
created, &c. And this was the current language at the
making, and before the making, of this Creed. The
Arians were the sole occasion of introducing both kinds
of expression, which must therefore be interpreted ac-
cordingly. Two things were designed by them: one, to
obviate the Arian tenet, that the three Persons were dif-
fering in kind and in degree, as being of unequal per-
fections; the other to obviate the Arian charge, or
calumny, upon the Church as making three Gods. In
regard to the former, when the Catholics speak of one

214 A COMMENTARY ON

Divinity, they intend equal Divinity, not Divinities
differing in kind or degree; and in regard to the latter,
they further mean undivided and inseparable Divinity,
not many Divinities. The true meaning, then, and the
full meaning of the expressions of the Creed will be
very clear and obvious. The three Persons are equal
in duration, and undivided too; one Eternity (one, be-
cause undivided and inseparable) is common to all, and
therefore they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal.
The oldest writers who have used this way of ex-
pression are, so far as I have observed, Ambrose, Faus-
tinus, and Austin; and their meaning in it is very
plain and certain, from the places themselves where
they make use of it. Fulgentius, who came not long
after them, sometimes falls into the same manner of
expression®; but sparingly, as if he either did not fully
attend to it, or had some scruple about it; for his
general way is to say, not three eternal Gods, but one
eternal God‘, instead of the other in the Creed, and so

ε Relativa nomina Trinitatem faciunt, essentialia vero nullo
modo triplicantur. Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus.
Bonus Pater, bonus Filius, bonus Spiritus Sanctus. Pius Pater,
pius Filius, pius Spiritus Sanctus. Justus Pater, justus Filius,
justus et Spiritus Sanctus. Omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius,
omnipotens et Spiritus Sanctus. Kt tamen non dicimus nec Tres
Deos, nec Tres bonos, nec Tres pios, nec Tres justos, nec Tres om-
nipotentes, sed unum Deum, bonum, pium, justum, omnipotentem,
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum.”—Fulgent., de Trin.,
c. 2, p. 330.

f ἐς Mternus est sine initio Pater, zternus est sine initio Filius,
zternus est sine initio Spiritus Sanctus: nec tamen tres Dii eterni
sed unus eternus Deus.”—Fulgent., ad Ferrand., Epist. 14, ὃ 6,
p. 292.

‘“Tmmensus est Pater, sed immensus est Filius, et immensus est
et Spiritus Sanctus: nec tamen tres Dii immensi, sed unus Deus
immensus.”—Fulgent., 7).

““Omnipotens Pater; Omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus
Sanctus ; nec tamen tres Dii omnipotentes, sed unus Deus omnipo-
tens est Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus.”—Fulgent., ἐδ,

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 915

in the like cases. Which, indeed, is a very insipid and
dull way of expressing it, and if applied to every Arti-
cle in the Athanasian Creed, would make it a very flat
composition in comparison to what it is. It is true,
that all at length resolves into this, that the threc
Persons are not three Gods, but one God. This is the
ground and foundation, and the other is the super-
structure. But then it is a fine and elegant, as well
as a solid superstructure ; improving the thought, an
carrying on a train of new and distinct propositions,
and not merely a jejune and sapless repetition of the
same thing.

12. As also there are not three Incomprehensibles, nov
three Uncreated ; but one Unereated, and one Inconi-
prehensible§.

Not three Incomprehensibles, &c., as not differing
either in kind or degree of incomprehensibility, nor
yet divided in those perfections; but one Incompre-
hensible, and one Uncreated, one as to the kind anid
degree of those attributes or perfections; and one in
number, too, as much as union and inseparability, infi-
nitely close and perfect, can be conceived to make, or
do really make one.

13. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Al-
mighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty.

Equally Almighty every one, without any difference
or inequality in kind or degree.

& Here, again, one may perceive what copy our translators fol-
lowed, namely, Bryling’s Greek copy. All the other copies, Greek
and Latin, place the words in a different order: ‘‘ Not three un-
created, nor three incomprehensibles, but one uncreated,” &c. Only
the Ambrosian Latin copy reads, ‘‘ Not three uncreated, nor three

incomprehensibles (immense) but one incomprehensible (immense)
and one uncreated.”

216 A COMMENTARY ON

14. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one
Almighty.

One Omnipotence, or Almightiness, is common to all
three: one in kind as being of equal extent, and
equally reaching over all; and one also in number, be-
cause of the inseparable union among the three, in the
inward perfection, and outward exercise, or operation.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the
Holy Ghost is God.

The whole three Persons equally Divine, and enjoy-
ing every perfection belonging to the Godhead.

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

Because the Godhead or Divinity which belongs
to one, belongs to all: the same in kind because of
the equality, and the same in number because in-
separably one.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord.

Having the same right of dominion, and of equal
dominion; and equally exercising it when and where
they please.

18. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

Because one dominion is common to all three, jointly
possessing, and jointly exercising every branch of it;
undividedly, and inseparably bearing supreme rule
over all.

19. For, like as we are compelled by the Christian
verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God
and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion
to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

That is to say, the whole foundation of what hath
been before taught rests upon this, that the same Chris-

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. PW é

tian verity, or truth, laid down in Scripture, obliges us
to acknowledge every Person distinctly considered to
be God and Lord; and at the same time to reject the
notion of three Gods or three Lords: which being so,
all that has been here taught must, of course, be ad-
mitted as true, right, and just. And now, having con-
sidered the equality and union of the three sacred
Persons, it may next be proper to consider their dis-
tinction, as it is set forth to us in Scripture by the seve-
ral personal characters belonging to the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost.

20. The Father 1s made of none, neither created nor
begotten.

Were I at liberty to make conjectural emendations,
I would here read, Pater a nullo est: neque factus, nec
ὅς. The Father is of none: neither made, nor created,
fe. And thus the next Article (Zhe Son is of the
Father alone) would better answer, and the whole
would be more elegant. But having met with no
copy® to countenance such a correction, I must not
pretend to it, lest it should appear like correcting the
author. However, the sense is very plain and obvious.
All the three negatives here predicated of the Father
amount to this one, that He is absolutely of none.
This is His peculiar property, His distinguishing cha-

4 Lazarus Baifius’s copy, in Genebrard, reads, 6 πατὴρ am οὐδενός
ἐστι. But then it entirely omits ποιητὸς, which, as is plain from
what follows in the Creed, ought not to be omitted. Had the copy
run thus, am’ οὐδενός ἐστι. οὔτε μὴν ποιητὺς. οὔτε KTLOTOS, &C., it
would have answered my meaning. Indeed, the first Greek copy
in Labbe’s Councils (vol. ii. p. 601), and third in Montfaucon,
run in such a way as I suppose: but then I take them to have
been patched up from several distinct copies, at the pleasure of the

editor or editors; and none of the Latin copies will warrant such
a reading.

218 A COMMENTARY ON

racter, to be first in order, and the Head of everything ;
to whom even the Son and Holy Ghost are referred,
but diversely and in different manner.

21. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor
created, but begotten.

The Son is here said to be of the Father alone, in
contradistinction to the Holy Ghost, to be named after,
who is not of the Father alone, but of both. The
Greeks that struck out the words, and of the Son,
below, and left the word alone here, were not aware
of it. This conduct of theirs betrayed a shortness of
thought, and at the same time served to shew that the
Latins had not been interpolators of the Creed, but
that the Greeks had been curtailers. It must, how-
ever, be owned, that the Greeks who drew up that form,
which Bishop Usher printed from Junius, were wise
enough to observe how this matter stood, and therefore
struck out the word alone here, as well as and of the
Son below.

22. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son ;
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

The peculiar and distinguishing character of the
Holy Ghost is to proceed, and to proceed both from
Father and Son. Indeed, the Son and Holy Ghost are
both of the Father, but in a different manner, to us in-
explicable ; one by the way of generation, the other by
procession, though the word Procession, in a lax sense,
has been sometimes applied to either. However, to
proceed from the Father and the Son, or, as the Greeks
will needlessly cavil, from the Father by the Son; that
is peculiar to the Holy Ghost. The Greeks and Latins
have had many and tedious disputes about the Proces-

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 219

sion. One thing is observable, that though the ancients,
appealed to by both parties, have often said that the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, without mention-
ing the Son, yet they never said that He proceeded
from the Father alone ; so that the modern Greeks have
certainly innovated in that Article, in expression at
least, if not in real sense and meaning. As to the
Latins, they have this to plead, that none of the an-
cients ever condemned their doctrine; that many of
them have expressly asserted it; that the Oriental
Churches themselves rather condemn their taking upon
them to add anything to a Creed formed in a general
Council than the doctrine itself; that those Greek
Churches that charge their doctrine as heresy, yet are
forced to admit much the same thing, only in different
words; and that Scripture itself is plain that the Holy
Ghost proceeds at least by the Son, if not from Him,
which yet amounts to the same thing.

I should here observe, that some time before the com-
piling of this Creed, the usual Catholic way of speaking
of the Holy Ghost was to say, that He was nee genitus,
nec ingenitus, neither begotten nor unbegotten, while this
Creed, by barely denying Him to be begotten, seems to
leave room to think that He is wnbegotten. This raised
a scruple in the minds of some here in England, con-
cerning that part of the Creed, above 700 years ago, as
we learn from Abbo Floriacensis of that time. For
Gregory’s Synodicon admitted here, as well as this
Creed, had the very expression concerning the Holy
Ghost, nec ingenitus, nec genitus. It might have been
easy to end the dispute, only by distinguishing upon
the equivocal meaning of the word ingenitus. It had

220 A COMMENTARY ON

been taken from the Greek, ἀγένητος, which signified
not barely unbegotten, but absolutely underived: in this
sense the Holy Ghost could not be said to be ¢xgenitus.
But if it barely means not begotten, it may be applied
to Him, as it is in the Creed. The whole difficulty
then arose only from the scantiness of the Latin tongue,
in not affording a single word which should fully ex-
press the Greek ἀγένητος, “unoriginate.” Zngenitus might
tolerably do it; but the word was more commonly
taken in a narrower construction. Peter Abelard has
hit off the whole difficulty very clearly ; whose words,
therefore, I have thrown into the margin’.

23. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one
Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy
Ghosts.

Whether this paragraph be borrowed from St. Austin,
or from an elder writer under the name of Ignatius,
I know not. The foundation of it was laid in 1 Cor.
vill. 6, one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ ;
to which it was usual to add, after reciting it, and one
Holy Ghost, to complete the whole number of the Divine
Persons. The intent and purport of the words in this
Creed is to set forth the distinction of the three Persons
and their several offices and characters; that there is
one Father, and that He alone is wnoriginate, is First

i «Solum itaque Patrem ingenitum dicimus, hoe est, a seipso
non ab alio: unde Augustinus adversus Felicianum Arrianum ; Pa-

trem ingenitum dico, quia non processit ab altero. . . Aliud itaque
dicere est Patrem ingenitum, aliud non genitum.. . Spiritus vero
Sanctus ipse quoque est non genitus . . . Nec tamen ideo est inge-

nitus, cum ipse ab alio sit, tam a Patre scilicet quam a Filio proce-
dens. Solus itaque Pater ingenitus dicitur, sicut solus Filius geni-
tus: Spiritus vero Sanctus nee genitus est, nec ingenitus, sed, ut
dictum est, non genitus.”—Abelard., Introd. ad Theolog., lib. i.
c. 6, p. 983.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. eH |

Person, is Head, &c., and neither the Son nor Holy
Ghost have any share in these titles or characters to
make three Unoriginates, three Heads, ἕο. That there
is one Son, and He alone begotten, and afterwards incar-
nate, &c., which characters and offices belong not to
the other two, but are distinct and appropriate to one.
And there is one Holy Ghost, whose character is to
proceed, and whose office is to sanctify, which charac-
ter and office are not to be ascribed in the same sense
to the other two; for that would be confounding the
personal characters and offices, and making three Holy
Ghosts instead of one.

24. And in this Trinity, none is afore or after other,
none is greater or less than another ; but the whole three
Persons are coeternal together and coequal.

The compiler of the Creed now returns to the equa-
lity and unity of the Persons; that he may at length
sum and throw into a short compass what he had said
upon the Trinity before he should pass on to the other
great Article, the Incarnation. When it is said, none
is afore or after other, we are not to understand it of
order; for the Father is first, the Son second, and the
Holy Ghost third in order. Neither are we to under-
stand it of office; for the Father is supreme in office,
while the Son and Holy Ghost condescend to inferior
offices. But we are to understand it, as the Creed
itself explains it, of duration, and of dignity ; in which
respect none is afore or after, none greater or less, but
the whole three Persons coeternal and coequal.

25. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in
Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

In all things (per omnia) as vs aforesaid, One of the

229 A COMMENTARY ON

Greek copies tacks these words to the former Article,
making them run thus: coequal in all things, as afore-
said. Another Greek copy reads them thus: coegual in
all things; so that in all things, as is now said, &e.
Both interpret the all things of the coequality in all
things. And, indeed, Venantius Fortunatus, in his
Comment, long before, seems to have understood, per
omnia, mm the same way, to signify that the Son is what
the Father is, in all essential or substantial perfections.
And it is favoured both by what goes before and after ;
for, from speaking of the coeternity and coequality, the
author proceeds to say, so that in all things, as afore-
said, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is
to be worshipped ; namely, on account of their perfect
coeternity and coequality: to which he subjoins, He
therefore that will be saved, §e. Wherefore I incline
to the moderate opinion of those who think that the
author here does not lay the stress upon every little
nicety of explication* before given, but upon the main
doctrine of a coequal and coeternal Trinity; which is
the very construction given by Hincmar 900 years ago,
or nearly’. And Wickliff’s comment upon the same

k Le Quien’s ingenious and handsome reflection upon the con-

duet of Pope Gregory the Ninth’s legates, may deserve a recital
here :—

““Quamquam non possum quin ingenue fatear Nuncios Aposto-
licos consultius facturos fuisse, si ab ejusmodi sententia pronun-
tianda sibi temperassent ; Qui credit Spiritum Sanctum non pro-
cedere ex Filio, in via perditionis est: tune quippe temporis Ee-
clesia Catholica in nulla Synodo Generali hoc de capite judicium
definitorium tulerat.”—Panopl., contr. Schism. Grecor., sec. xiii.
ce. 1, ὃ 28, p. 360.

1 “kt in hae Trinitate nihil est prius, nihil posterius; nihil
majus, aut minus; sed tote tres Persone coxternz sibi sunt et
coequales: ita ut per omnia, et unitas Deitatis in Trinitate Per-
sonarum, et Trinitas Personarum in unitate Deitatis veneranda est.”
—Hinem., de non Trina Deitate, vol. i. ο. 17, p. 540.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED, 293

passage, when put into a modern dress, may appear not
contemptible: ‘‘ And so we conclude here, as is before
said, that there is both an Unity of Godhead, and
a Trinity of Persons; and that the Trinity in this
Unity is to be worshipped above all things ; and who-
soever will be saved must thus think of the Trinity, if
not thus explicitly (or in every particular), yet thus in
the general, or implicitly.”

26. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of
the Trinity.

Thus, as consisting of three Persons, coeternal and
coequal, and all one God; distinct enough to be three,
united enough to be one; distinct without division,
united without confusion.

27. Furthermore, vt is necessary to everlasting salva-
tion, that he also believe rightly™ the Incarnation of our
Lord Jesus Christ.

Much depends upon our having true and just senti-
ments of the Jncarnation, in which the whole ceconomy
of our salvation is nearly concerned. To corrupt and
deprave this doctrine is to defeat and frustrate, in
a great measure, the Gospel of Christ, which bringeth
salvation: wherefore it is of great moment, of everlast-
ing concernment to us, not to be guilty of doing it our-
selves, nor to take part with those that do.

28. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

There have been heretics who would not allow that
our Saviour Christ was Man, but in such a sense as

™"Op0as πιστεύσῃ. So Bryling’s Greek copy. The Latin

copies have, Wideliter credat. Some Greek copies read, πιστῶς; or
βεβαίως, though two, besides Bryling’s, have also ὀρθῶς.

224 A COMMENTARY ON

a shadow, or a picture of a man, may be called a man;
and there have been others who would not allow that
Christ is God but in such a sense as any creature what-
ever might be called, or may be made a God. But all
good Christians have ever abhorred those vile tenets,
and conformably to Scripture, rightly and justly inter-
preted, have believed and confessed that Christ is both
really God and really Man, one God-man.

29. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before
the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His Mother,
born in the world.

We are forced to be thus particular and expressive
in the wording of this Article, because of the many
wiles, equivocations, and disguises of those who endea-
vour to corrupt the faith. The Arians make of Christ
a created God, and call Him God on account only of
His office, and not of His nature or unchangeable sub-
stance. For this reason, we are obliged to be particular
in expressing His substance, as being not frail, mutable,
perishing, as the substance of creatures is, but eternal
and unchangeable, and all one with the Father’s. On
the other hand, the Apollinarians and other heretics
have pretended either that Christ had no human body
at all, or that He brought it with Him from heaven,
and took it not of the Virgin-Mother. We are there-
fore forced to be particular in this profession, that He
was Man of the substance of His Mother : which, though
it be not taught in express words, yet is very plainly
the sense and meaning of Holy Scripture on this Arti-
cle; and was never questioned till conceited men came
to pervert the true doctrine of Sacred Writ by false
glosses and comments of their own.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 225

80, Perfect God and perfect Man; of a reasonable
soul and human flesh subsisting.

Here, again, the perverseness of heretics has made it
necessary to guard the Faith by strong and expressive
words that cannot easily be eluded. Christ is perfect
God, not such a nominal imperfect God as Arians and
Photinians pretend. He is, moreover, perfect Man,
which it is necessary to insist upon against the Apolli-
narians, who pretended that He had a human body
only, without any rational soul, imagining the Logos
to have supplied the place of the rational or reasonable
soul: whereas, in reality, He had both soul and body,
as all men have, and was therefore perfect Man.

31. Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead :
and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood.

Which needs no comment.

32. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not
two, but one Christ.

This is said to guard against calumny and miscon-
struction; for, because the Church asserted two natures
in Christ, whereby He is both perfect God and perfect
Man, the Apollinarians, having an hypothesis of their
own to serve, pretended that this was making two
Christs, a Divine Christ, as to one nature, and a human
Christ in the other: which was a vain thought, since
both the natures joined in the one God-man make still
but one Christ, both God and man.

33. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh,
but by taking of the manhood into God.

The Apollinarian way of making one Christ, by con-
founding the two natures in one, and by subjecting the
Godhead to change, is here condemned. There is no

Q

226 A COMMENTARY ON

need of running these injudicious and absurd lengths
for solving the difficulty how the two natures make
one Christ: He did not change His Divine nature, or
convert it into flesh, though He be said to have been
made flesh; He took flesh upon Him, He assumed
human nature, took man into an union with God, and
thus was He one Christ.

34. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but
by unity of Person.

We are thus forced to distinguish with the utmost
nicety and accuracy, to obviate the cavils and pretences
of heretics. Christ, then, is one altogether, entirely
one, though his two natures remain distinct. He is
not one by confounding or mingling two natures or
substances into one nature or substance (as the Apolli-
narians pretended), but by uniting them both in one
person; one I, one He, one Christ, as Scripture every-
where represents.

85. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one Man ;
so God and Man is one Christ.

That is to say, there are two very distinct and dif-
ferent substances in man, a body and a soul: one ma-
terial, the other immaterial; one mortal, the other
immortal; and both these substances, nevertheless,
make up but ove man. Not by confounding or min-
gling those two different substances (for they are en-
tirely distinct and different, and will ever remain so),
but by uniting them in one Person. Even so may the
two distinct natures, Divine and human, in Christ make
one person ; and this is really and truly the case in fact.

36. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into
Hell, rose again the third day from the dead.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED, 227

The author, having finished his explication of the
great Article of God incarnate, now goes on to other
parts of the Creed, such as were commonly inserted in
the Creeds before. The Article of Zhe Descent into Hell
had not, indeed, at this time come into the Roman,
otherwise called the Apostles’ Creed; but it had been
inserted in the Creed of Aquileia, and had been all
along the standing doctrine of the Church. TI shall
leave it, as our Church has left it, without any parti-
cular interpretation, referring the reader to those who
have commented on the Apostles’ Creed, and particu-
larly to the much-admired author of the history of it,
who hath exhausted the subject.

37. He ascended into Heaven, He sitteth on the right
hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He shall
come to judge the quick and the dead.

These are all so many Articles of the Roman Creed,
and probably taken from it; excepting only that the
words, God Almighty, appear not in the most ancient
manuscripts; and, very probably, were not originally
in this Creed any more than in the ancient Roman.

38. At whose coming all men shall rise again with
their bodies, and shall give account for their own works.

Here are two very expressive phrases, οὐδ men, all
that have died, or shall die, to obviate the false opinion
of a partial resurrection; and with their bodies, to ob-
viate the notion of those who either thought that the
soul only should continue for ever, while the body
should be left to perish, or that the resurrection-body
should be quite of another matter, form, or kind, than
what our bodies are here. I have hinted, in my Latin
notes above, that some words are wanting in the Ambro-

228 A COMMENTARY ON

sian manuscript; and I may here observe farther, that
in the words of the Creed, as they commonly run, there
is not all the accuracy that might have been; for
all men shall not rise, but only all that de. How-
ever, it seems that about that time there was some
variety of sentiments in respect of that Article, as
we may learn from Gennadius"; which was owing to
the different reading of 1 Cor. xv. 51, from whence,
probably, arose some variation in the copies of this
Creed. See Pearson on the Apostles’ Creed, Article 7,
p. 582.

39. And they that have done good shall go into life
everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlast-
ing fire.

This is the express doctrine of Scripture, and ap-
pears almost in the same words, John v. 28, Matt. xxv.
46, to say nothing 0” many other texts to the same
effect. Yet this Article, or rather these two Articles,
had not gained admittance into the Apostles’ Creed so
early as the fourth century, the latter of them not at
all. But, I suppose, the opinion said to have been
started by Origen, that wicked men, and even devils,
after a certain revolution, should have their release and

2 “Omnium hominum erit resurrectio: si omnium erit, ergo
omnes moriuntur, ut mors ab Adam ducta omnibus filiis ejus do-
minetur, et maneat illud privilezium in Domino, quod de eo spe-
cialiter dicitur: non dabis Sanctum tuum videre corruptionem.
.... Hane ratimem, maxima patrum turba tradente, suscepimus.
Verum quia sunt et alii, eque Catholici et eruditi viri, qui credunt,
anima in corpore manente, mutandos ad incorruptionem et immor-
talitatem eos qui in Adventu Domini vivi inveniendi sunt, et hoc
eis reputari pro resurrectione ex mortuis, quod mortalitatem im-
mutatione deponant, non morte ; quolibet quis a’quiescat modo,
non est heereticus, nisi ex contentione heereticus fiat. Sufficit enim
in Ecclesiz leve, carnis resurrectionem credere futuram de morte.”
—Gennad., Hecles. Dogm., ¢. 7, pp. 76, 77.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 229

restoration, might make it the more necessary, or con-
venient at least, to insert these Articles in the Creeds,
and to express the punishment of the damned by the
words eternal fire: for the Origenists, at that time,
denied both the eternity of the fire and also its reality,
as appears from Orosius in St. Austin °.

40. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man be-
lieve faithfully”, he cannot be saved.

This is to be understood, like all other such general
propositions, with proper reserves and qualifying con-
structions. As, for instance, if, after laying down
a system of Christian morality, it be said, Zhis 7s the
Christian practice, which except a man faithfully observe
and follow, he cannot be saved, it would be no more than
right and just thus to say: But no one could be sup-
posed hereby to exclude any such merciful abatements
or allowances as shall be made for men’s particular cir-
cumstances, weaknesses, frailties, ignorance, inability,
or the like; or for their sincere intentions, and honest
desires of knowing and doing the whole will of God;
accompanied with a general repentance of their sins,
and a firm reliance upon God’s mercy, through the sole
merits of Christ Jesus. There can be no doubt, how-
ever, but that men are accountable for their Faith, as

o “* Tonem sane externum, quo peccatores puniantur, neque esse
ignem verum, neque eternum predicaveruut, dicentes dictum esse
ignem propriz conscientie punitionem, steruum autem, juxta
etymologiam Grecam, non esse perpetuum,” &c.—Epist. Orusii ad
August., in August., vol. vili. p. 609.

P Πιστῶς πιστεισῃ. So Bryling’s copy, which our translators
followed.

The Latin copies have, “‘ fideliter, firmiterque crediderit.” And
the other Greek copies, Πιστῶς τε kal βεβαίως πιστεύσῃ. Or,
ἐκ πίστεως βεβαίως πιστεύσῃ.

290 A COMMENTARY, &c.

well as for their practice; and especially if they take
upon them to instruct and direct others, trusting to
their own strength and parts, against the united judg-
ment and verdict of whole Churches, ancient and
modern.

CHAPTER XI.

Tuer Cuurcu oF Encianp VINDICATED, BOTH AS TO THE
Recervine AND RETAINING THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

TueEreE would be no occasion for this chapter, had not
a late Author* of name and character, out of his abund-
ant zeal to promote Arianism, taken upon him to dis-
parage this excellent form of Faith; nay, and to apply,
with some earnestness, to the governors of our Church
to get it laid aside. He thinks “it may well deserve the
most serious and deliberate consideration of the gover-
nors of the Church, whether it would not be more ad-
vantageous to the true interest of the Christian religion
to retain only those more indisputable forms* ;” that is,
to have this wholly taken away, or at least not im-
posed in our Articles or Liturgy. Then he subjoins
his reasons: which, because they may be presumed to
be the closest and strongest that can be offered on that
side, and because they have hitherto stood without any
particular confutation on one hand, or retractation on
the other, I shall here take upon me to answer them as
briefly as may be.

Oxsuction I.

The first is, that this Creed is confessed not to be
Athanasius’s, but the composition of an uncertain ob-
scure author, written in one of the darkest and most
ignorant ages of the Church, having never appeared till

@ Clarke’s Script. Doctr., first edit., pp. 446, 447.

232 THE REASONABLENESS OF RETAINING

about the year 800, nor been received in the Church
till so very late as about the year 1000.

Answ. As to the false facts contained in this Article,
I need only refer to the preceding sheets. As to the
Creed being none of Athanasius’s, which is certainly
true, it is to be considered that our Church receives it
not upon the authority of its compiler, nor determines
anything about its age or author; but we receive it be-
cause the truth of the doctrines contained in it may be
proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture, as
is expressly said in our Eighth Article. I may add,
that the early and general reception of this Creed by
Greeks and Latins, by all the Western Churches, not
only before, but since the Reformation, must needs
give it a much greater authority and weight than the
single name of Athanasius could do, were it ever so
justly to be set to it. Athanasius has left some Creeds
and Confessions, undoubtedly his, which yet never have
obtained the esteem and reputation that this hath done:
because none of them are really of the same intrinsic
value, nor capable of doing the like service in the
Christian Churches. The use of it is, to be a standing
fence and preservative against the wiles and equivoca-
tions of most kinds of heretics. This was well under-
stood by Luther, when he called it “ἃ bulwark to the
Apostles’ Creed® ;’’ much to the same purpose with what
has been above cited from Ludolphus Saxo*. And it

Ὁ ἐς Athanasii scilicet Symbolum est paulo prolixius, et ad confu-
tandos Arianos | zereticos, aliquanto uberius declarat, et illustrat
Articulum alterum de Divinitate Christi Jesu... estque hoc velut
propugnaculum primi illius Apostolici Symboli.”—Luther., de Trib.
Symbol., vol. vii. p. 139.

¢ Thus also Alexander of Hales, 100 years before Ludolphus.
“Causa multiplicationis Symbolorum tuit tripiex: Instructio Fidei,

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 233

was this and the like considerations that have all along
made it be of such high esteem among all the Reformed
Churches, from the days of their great leader.

Ossection IT,

The second reason assigned for laying this form aside
is, that it is so worded as that many of the common
people cannot but be too apt to understand it in a sense
favouring either Sabellianism or Tritheism.

Answ. This objection is not particularly levelled
against this Creed, but against all Creeds containing
the doctrine of a Coeternal Trinity in Unity, It is
therefore an objection rather against the Faith of the
Church (which those gentlemen endeavour constantly
to run down, under the notion of Sabellianism, or Tri-
theism), than against this particular form of express-
ing it.

I may further add, that the common people will be
in no danger of running either into Sabellianism or
Tritheism if they attend to the Creed itself (which
fully obviates and confutes both those heresies), instead
of listening to those who first industriously labour to
deceive them into a false construction of the Creed, and
then complain of the common people’s being too apt to
misunderstand it. This is not ingenuous, nor upright
dealing with the common people.

Oxsecrion IIT.
A third reason is, that there are in this Creed many
phrases which . . . may seem to give unbelievers a need-

veritatis explanatio, erroris exclusio. . . Erroris exclusio, propter
hzereses multiplices pullulantes, causa fuit Symboli Athanasii, quod
cantatur in prima.’’—Alexand. Alens., Part iii., q. 82; Membr. 2,
vol. i. p. 279, (p. 541); Johan. Januensis in his Catholicon (An. 1286),
under Symbolum, says the same thing. (See above, p. 37.)

234 THE REASONABLENESS OF RETAINING

less advantage of objecting against religion; and among
believers themselves cannot but to the vulgar have too
much the appearance of contradictions ; and sometimes
(especially the damnatory clauses) have given offence to
the piousest and most learned men, insomuch as to
have been the principal reason of Mr. Chillingworth’s
refusing to subscribe the XX XIX. Articles.

Answ. As to unbelievers, and their objections, the
Church has been always able and willing to answer
them; sorry at the same time to find, that any who
call themselves Christians should join with the unbe-
lievers in the same trifling objections, thereby giving
the unbelievers a very needless advantage and the most
pernicious encouragement. As to vulgar believers, they
suspect no contradictions, till some, who think them-
selves above the vulgar, labour to create such a sus-
picion in them. Leave the vulgar to their better
guides and their true orthodox pastors, without endea-
vouring to corrupt or seduce them, and then all will be
safe and easy.

As to Mr. Chillingworth, he had for a while, it is
owned, some scruples upon him about the Fourth Com-
mandment as appertaining to Christians, and about the
damnatory clauses in the Athanasian Creed, and there-
fore refused to subscribe for a time. This was in the
year 1635. But within three years after, upon more
mature consideration, he happily got over his difficul-
ties, and subscribed, July the 20th, in the year 1638,
as stands upon record in the office of Sarum, where he
was instituted Chancellor of the Church‘.

a “Ego Gulielmus Chillingworth, Clericus, in Artibus Magister,
ad Cancellariatum Ecclesiz Cathedralis Beate Marie Sarum, una

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 235

Oxsection LY.

A fourth reason offered, not for laying aside this
Creed, I suppose, but for the governors taking it into
consideration, is, that the Preface to the Book of Com-
mon Prayer declares that particular forms of Divine
Worship, and rites and ceremonies appointed to be used
therein, being things in their own nature indifferent
and alterable, may, upon the various exigency of times
and occasions, be changed or altered.

Awnsw. No doubt but the Church may, if it be
thought proper or expedient, throw out all the Creeds
out of her daily service, or Articles, and retain one
only, in the office of Baptism, as formerly. But, I sup-
pose, the authors of the Preface to the Book of Common
Prayer had no thought of excluding any of the three
Creeds amongst their alterable forms of worship, or
rites and ceremonies: nor will the revival of Arianism
be ever looked upon as one of those exigencies of times
that shall make it expedient to part with our Creeds,
but a reason rather for retaining them the more firmly,
or even for taking them in again, had any of them ever
been unhappily thrown out.

Oxnsection V.
A further reason pleaded is, that Scripture alone
is sufficient; that the primitive Church was very cau-
tious about multiplying Creeds; that the Council of

cum Prebenda de Brinworth, alias Bricklesworth, in comitatu
Northampton Petriburgensis diceceseos in eadem Ecclesia fundata,
et eidem Cancellariatui annexa, admittendus et instituendus, omni-
bus hisce Articulis, et singulis in eisdem contentis volens et ex
animo subscribo, et consensum meum eisdem przebeo, vicesimo die
Julii, 1638.’’—Gulielmus Chillingworth. (Extract from the Register
of the Church of Salisbury, inserted in the preface to the ninth
edition of the Works of Chillingworth.)

286 THE REASONABLENESS OF RETAINING

Ephesus forbade, under the penalty of an anathema,
any other Creed after that of Nice to be proposed or
received in the Church.

Answ. The whole design and end of Creeds is to
preserve the rule of faith, as contained in the Holy
Scriptures, and not in the false glosses and corrupt in-
ventions of men*. And when endeavours are used to
poison those fountains of truth by ill comments and
forced constructions, preservatives must be thought on to
keep the fountain pure and the faith sound and whole.

As to the primitive Churches, their constant way
was to enlarge their Creeds in proportion to the growth
of heresies, that so every corruption arising to the
faith of Christ might have an immediate remedy ; with-
out which prudent and wise caution the faith would
have been lost in a little time through the wiles and
artifices of subtle intriguing men.

The Council of Ephesus made no order against new
Creeds, that is, Creeds still more and more enlarged,
if there should be occasion, but against a new Faith
(ἑτέραν πίστιν), a Faith different from and repugnant to
that of Nice, such as was offered by the Nestorians in
that Council. This is the lteral construction and real
intended meaning of that decree of the Ephesine Coun-
cil®; though, had they intended it against the receiy-

2 Οὐ yap ὡς ἔδοξεν ἀνθρώποις συνετέθη τὰ τῆς πίστεως" ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ
πάσης γραφῆς τὰ καιριώτατα συλλεχθέντα play ἀναπληροῖ τὴν
τῆς πίστεως διδασκαλίαν. —Cyrill., Catech., v. c. 12, p. 78.

f Ἑτέραν πίστιν μηδενὶ ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν ἤγουν συγγράφειν ἢ
συντιθέναι, παρὰ τὴν δρισθεῖσαν παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων τῶν ἐν
τῇ Νικαέων συναχθέντων mdA€1.—Conc. Ephes., Can. 7, in Routh’s
Opusc., vol. ii. p. 8.

& Le Quien, Panopl. ὁ. Schism. Grac., see. xi. ὁ. 2, ὃ 9, &e.,
p. 290 ; Dissertat. Damascen., p. 14, &e.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 237
ing any other form but the Nicene, all that follows
from it is, that they thought no more necessary at that
time, or that definitions in Councils (as in the Council
of Chalcedon afterwards), or condemnation of heretical
tenets might suffice, leaving the Baptismal Creed (all
Creeds were such at that time) just as was before.
However, the practice of the Church afterwards, in
multiplying Creeds as need required, at the same time
that they acknowledged the Ephesine Council, shews
fully how they understood it. Nay, the constant re-
ception of the Constantinopolitan Creed (which is the
Nicene interpolated, and yet was never understood to
be excluded by the Ephesine Canon) shews plainly the
sense of the Synod in that matter. It is to be noted,
that the Ephesine Council by Nicene Creed meant the
Nicene strictly so callid®, and which had already been
interpolated by the Constantinopolitan Council.

Oxsection VI.

Another plea offered is, that, in the year 1689, many
wise and gvod prelates of our own (commissioned to
review and correct our Liturgy) unanimously agreed
that the use of the Athanasian Creed should no longer
be imposed.

Answ. There may be reason to question the truth of
this report. There are two accounts which I have seen
of this matter; one of Dr. Nichols, the other of Dr.
Calamy, which he received of a friend. Dr. Nichols’s
account runs thus :—‘‘ Athanasius’s Creed being dis-
liked by many, because of the damnatory clauses, it
was left to the minister’s choice either to use it, or to

h Vid. Le Quien, 'ib., p. 231; Dissert. Damascen., p. 18.

238 THE REASONABLENESS OF RETAINING

change it for the Apostles’ Creedi.”” Dr. Calamy’s ac-
count is thus:—“‘ About the Athanasian Creed, they
came at last to this conclusion: that least the wholly
rejecting it should by unreasonable persons be imputed
to them as Socinianism, a Rubric shall be made, setting
forth, or declaring the curses denounced therein not to
. . . . J
be restrained to every particular Article, but intended
against those that deny the substance of the Christian
religion in general*.” Now, from these two accounts
compared, it may be reasonable to believe that those
wise and good prelates had once drawn up a scheme to
be debated and canvassed, in which scheme it was pro-
posed to leave every minister at liberty with respect to
the Athanasian Creed; but, upon more mature con-
sideration, they came at last to this conclusion, to im-
pose the Creed as before, and to qualify the seeming
harshness of the damnatory clauses by a softening
Rubric. They were therefore at length unanimously
agreed still to retain and impose this Creed, quite con-
trary to the objector’s Report. And, indeed, it must
have appeared very astonishing in the eyes of all the
reformed Churches, Lutheran and Calvinist (who bave
the greatest veneration for this Creed), to have seen it

i Nicholsii, Apparat. ad Defens. Eccl. Angl., p. 95.

κ᾿ Calamy’s Life of Baxter, vol. i. p. 455.

In a Postscript to his second edition, Dr. Waterland gives the
rubric, of which he had procured a copy, at full length, as follows:
“Upon these Feasts, Christmas Day, Kuster Day, Ascension Day,
Whit-sunday, Trinity Sundvy, and upon All Saints, shall be said at
Morning Prayer, by the minister and people standing, instead of the
Creed, commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, this Confession of our
Christian Faith, commonly called the Creed of St. Athanasius, the
Articles of which ought to be received and believed as being agree-
able to the Holy Scriptures. And the condemning clauses are to

be understood as relating only to those who obstinately deny the
substance of the Christian Faith.”

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 239

wholly rejected by the English clergy, when there had
been no precedent before of any one Church in Chris-
tendom that had done the like. All that ever received
it have constantly retained it, and still retain it. It is
further to be considered, that what those very worthy
prelates at that time intended sprung from a just and
becoming tenderness towards the Dissenters, because of
their long scruples against the damnatory clauses; but
there is not the same reason at this day. The wiser
and more moderate part of the Dissenting Ministers’
seem very well reconciled to the damnatory clauses,
modestly expounded ; as Dr. Wallis particularly has ex-
pounded them, justly and truly, as well as modestly.
And I am confident the soberer Dissenters would not,
at this time, wish to see so excellent and so useful
a form of faith laid aside, only to serve the interests of
our new Arians. However, since the damnatory clauses
were the main difficulty, a better way might have been
contrived than was then thought on; namely, to have
preserved the whole Creed except those clauses which
are separable from it. But the best of all, as I humbly

1 «This Creed, by whomsoever framed, hath been long received
in the Church, and looked on as agreeable to the Scriptures, and an
excellent explication of the Christian Faith. Constantinopie, Rome,
and the Reformed Churches have owned it. .. . Our pious and ex-
cellent Mr. Baxter, in his Method of Theol., p. 125, speaks thus of
it: ‘In a word, the damnatory sentences excepted, or modestly
expounded (such a modest Explication of the Damnatory Clauses
see in Dr. Wallis*, &c.), I embrace the Creed, commonly called
Athanasius’s, as the best explication of the Trinity. And in vol. ii.
of his Works, p. 132, says he, I unfeignedly account the doctrine
of the Trinity the sum and kernel of the Christian religion, as ex-
prest in our Baptism, and Athanasius his Creed the best explica-
tion of it I ever read.’”—Doctrine of the Trinity Stated, Xc., by
some Loudon Ministers, pp. 62, 63.

* Wallis, Explication of the Athanasian Creed, pp. 2, 3.

+ Baxter, tne Reasons of the Christian Religion, part 11, ο, 10.

240 THE REASONABLENESS OF RETAINING

conceive, is what has prevailed, and still obtains, to let
it stand as before, since the damnatory clauses have
been often and sufficiently vindicated by the reformed
Churches abroad™ as well as by our own here.

Oxssection VII.

It is pleaded farther, mostly in the words of Bishop
Taylor”, that the Apostles’ Creed is the Rule of Faith ;
that this only is necessary to Baptism; that what was
once sufficient to bring men to heaven must be so now;
that there is no occasion for being so minute and par-
ticular in the mattec of Creeds; with more to the like

purpose.

Answ. 1. Dr. Taylor goes upon a false supposition,
that the Creed called the Apostles’ was compiled by
the Apostles.

2. He has another false presumption, appearing all
the way in his reasonings on this head, that the Apostles’
Creed has been always the same that it is now: whereas
learned men know that it was not brought to its pre-
sent entire form till after the year 600°; is nothing

m Tentzelius, a Lutheran, is very smart upon this head, against
the Arminians, for their objecting to the damnatory sentences.

‘‘Verum injuste, atque impudenter accusant initium Symboli,
quod pridem vindicarunt nostrates Theologi: Dannhawerus in
Stylo Vindice, p. 200; Hulsemannus de Auziliis Gratie, p. 218;
Kromayerus in Theologia Positivo Polemica, pp. 98, 99 ; and in
Scrutinio Religionum, p. 205, aliique passim.” —Tentzel., p. 110. To
these which ‘entzelius has mentioned, I may add David Pareus
(a Calvivist), in his Comment upon this Creed, published at the end
of Ursinus’s Catechism, A.D. 1634, by Philip Pareus.

n Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, §§ 1, 10, 11, vol. v. p. 373.

© J] know not whether the words, s/aker of Heaven and Earth,
can be proved by any certain authority to have come into that
Creed before the eighth century ; for after the best searches I have
been hitherto able to make, I can find no copy (to be depended
upon) higher than that time, which has that clause.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 241

else but the Baptismal Creed of one particular Church,
the Church of Rome, and designedly short for the ease
of those who were to repeat it at Baptism. Now,
when we are told of the Apostles’ Creed containing all
that is necessary to salyation, and no more than is ne-
cessary, we would gladly know whether it be meant of
the old short Roman Creed ”, or of the present one con-
siderably larger: and if they intend the old one, why
application is not made to our governors to lay the new
one aside, or to curtail and reduce it to its primitive
size, by leaving out the Belief, or profession of God’s
being Creator of heaven and earth, and of Christ’s being
dead, and of His descent into hell, and of the Church
being Catholic, and of the communion of saints, and
life everlasting, as unnecessary Articles of Faith. Foi
why may not that suffice now which was once sufii-
cient? or how can anything be necessary at this day
that was not so from the beginning?

3. To set this whole matter right, it ought to be
considered that Creeds were never intended to contain, —
as it were, a certain quantity of faith as necessary to
bring men to heaven, and no more than is necessary.
Were this the case, all Creeds ought precisely to have
consisted of an equal number of Articles, and the same

P The old Roman (or Apostles’) Creed was no more than this, as
may be seen in Bishop Usher, de Symbol., pp. 8, 10, (6, 9).

“61 believe in God the Father Almighty: And in Jesus Christ His
only Son our Lord ; who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, rose again the
third day from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right
hand of the Father, from whence He shall come to judge the quick
and dead. And in the Holy Ghost, the holy Church, the remis-
sion of sins, the resurrection of the body. Amen.”

See also Heurtley, de Fide et Symbolo, p, 31 ; where, however, the
third Article is given, “Qui natus est ἃ Spiritu Sancto ex Maria
Virgine.”

R

242 THE REASONABLENESS OF RETAINING

individual Articles: whereas there are no two Creeds
anywhere to be found which answer to such exactness.
A plain argument that the Church, in forming of Creeds,
early and late, went upon no such view, but upon
quite another principle. The design of all was, to
keep up, as strictly as possible, the whole compages, or
fabric of the Christian Faith, as it stands in Scripture‘.
And if any part came to be attacked, they were then
to bend all their cares to succour and relieve that part,
in order still to secure the whole. Some few of the
main stamina, or chief lines, were taken care of from
the first, and made up the first Creeds: particularly
the doctrine of the Trinity, briefly hinted, and scarce
anything more, because the form of baptism led to it.
As to other Articles, or larger explications of this, they
came in occasionally, according as this or that part of
the Christian Faith seemed most to be endangered, and
to require present relief. And as this varied in several
countries or Churches (some being more disturbed than
others, and some with one kind of heresy, others with
another), so the Creeds likewise varied; some insisting
particularly upon this Article, others upon that, as
need required, and all still endeavouring to keep up
and maintain one whole and entire system of the Chris-
tian Faith, according to the true and full meaning of
Sacred Writ. There is nothing more in it than the
very nature and circumstance of the thing necessarily
leads to. I may illustrate the case a little farther by

4 Ἐπειδὴ yap ov πάντες δύνανται τὰς γραφὰς ἀναγινώσκειν,
ἀλλὰ τοὺς μὲν ἰδιωτεία, τοὺς δὲ ἀσχολία τις ἐμποδίζει πρὸς τὴν
γνῶσιν" ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐξ ἀμαθίας ἀπολέσθαι, ἐν ὀλίγοις

τοῖς στίχοις τὸ πᾶν δόγμα τῆς πίστεως mepiAauBdvouev.—Cyril.
Catech., v. c. 12, p. 78.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 243

an easy parallel between matters of faith and matters
of practice. The sum of Christian practice is contained
in two brief rules,—to love God, and to love one’s
neighbour, which comprehend all. No one needs more
than this; nor, indeed, can there be anything more.
But then a perverse man may possibly understand by
God, not the true God, the God of Jews and Christians,
but some other of his own devising, or such as has been
received by pagans or heretics; and he may understand
by neighbour, one of his own country only, or tribe,
or sect, or family. Well, then, to obviate any such
method of undermining Christian practice, it will be
necessary to be a little more particular than barely to
lay down in brief to love God and one’s neighbour: we
must add, the true God, the God of Jews and Chris-
tians, that very God and none else: and as to neigh-
bour, we must insist upon it, that it means not this or
that sect, tribe, party, &c., but all mankind. And now
our rule of practice begins to extend and enlarge itself
beyond its primitive simplicity, but not without rea-
son. To proceed a little farther: mistakes and per-
verse sentiments may arise in the interpreting the word
love, so as thereby to evacuate and frustrate the pri-
mary and fundamental rule; to correct and remove
which it may be necessary still farther to enlarge the
rule of practice, and to branch it out into many other
particulars, which to mention would be needless. Now,
if such a method as this will of course be necessary to
preserve the essentials of practice, let it not be thought
strange if the like has been made use of to preserve the
essentials of faith. There is the same reason and the
like occasion for both; and if due care be taken in

244 THE REASONABLENESS OF RETAINING

both to make all the branches hang naturally upon the
primary and fundamental rules, and to adopt no foreign
ones, as belonging thereunto when they really do not,
then there is nothing in this whole affair but a just and
prudent care about what most of all deserves it, and
such as will be indispensably required in every faithful
minister or steward of the mysteries of God. To return
to our point in hand: as more and more of the sacred
truths, in process of time, came to be opposed, or
brought in question, so Creeds have been enlarged in
proportion, and an explicit profession of more and more
Articles required of every candidate for baptism. And
because this was not security sufficient, since many
might forget, or not know, or not attend to what they
had professed in their baptism (by themselves or by
their sureties), it was found highly expedient and ne-
cessary to insert one or more Creeds in the standing
and daily offices of the Church, to remind people of that
Faith which they had solemnly engaged to maintain,
and to guard the unwary against the wily attempts of
heretics to pervert them. This is the plain and true
account of Creeds, and of their use in the Christian
Churches. And therefore, if any man would talk sense
against the use of this or that Creed in any Church, he
ought to shew either that it contains such truths as
no man ever did, or, in all probability, never will op-
pose (which will be a good argument to prove the
Creed superfluous), or that if contains Articles which are
not true, or are at best doubtful, which will be a good
argument to prove such a Creed hurtful. Now, as to
the Athanasian form, it will hardly be thought super-
fluous, so long as there are any Arians, Photinians,

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 245

Sabellians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Nestorians, or
Eutychians, in this part of the world; and as to its
being hurtful, that may then be proved when it can be
shewn that any of those forementioned heresies were
no heresies, or have not been justly condemned.

If it be pleaded that the vulgar, knowing little of
any of those heresies, will therefore know as little of
what the Creed means, and so to them it may be at least
dry and insipid, if not wholly useless; to this I an-
swer, that there no kinds of heretics but hope to make
the vulgar understand their tenets respectively, and to
draw them aside from the received Faith of the Church;
and therefore it behoves the pastors of the Church to
have a standing form, to guard the people against any
such attempts. The vulgar will understand, in the
general, and as far as is ordinarily to them necessary,
the main doctrines of a Trinity in unity, and of God
incarnate; and as to particular explications, whenever
they have occasion to look farther, they will find the
true ones laid down in this Creed, which will be useful
to prevent their being imposed upon at any time with
false ones. If they never have occasion to go farther
than generals, there is no hurt done to them by abund-
ant caution: if they have, here is a direction ready for
them, to prevent mistakes. It is not pretended that all
are capable of seeing through every nicety, or of per-
ceiving the full intent and aim of every part of this
form, and what it alludes to. But, as many as are
capable of being set wrong in any one branch (by the
subtlety of seducers), are as capable of being kept
right by this rule given them; and they will as easily
understand one side of the question as they will the

246 THE REASONABLENESS OF RETAINING

other. The Christian Churches throughout the world,
ever since the multiplication of heresies, have thought
it necessary to guard their people by some such forms
as these in standing use amongst them. The Oriental
Churches, which receive not this Creed into their con-
stant offices, yet more than supply the want of it, either
by other the like Creeds’, or by their solemn stated
prayers in their liturgies, wherein they express their
faith as fully and particularly (or more 505) as this Creed
does: and they are not so much afraid of puzzling and
perplexing the vulgar by doing it, as they are of be-
traying and exposing them to the attempts of seducers
should they not do it. For which reason also they fre-
quently direct their prayers to God the Son, as well as
to God the Father; being in that case more solicitous
than the Latin Churches have been, because they have
been oftener disturbed by Arians and other impugners
of Christ’s divinity .

Upon the whole, I look upon it as exceeding useful,
and even necessary, for every Church to have some
such form as this, or something equivalent, open and
common to all its members, that none may be led astray
for want of proper caution and previous instruction in
what so nearly concerns the whole structure and fabric

t See the Creed of the Armenians in Ricaut, p. 411, &c.

5. See Ludolphus Histor. 4thiop., lib. iii. c. 5; and Renaudot’s
Orient. Liturg., passim.

τ ““Namcum omnes Orationes Latini Canonis, ex vetustissima
traditione, ad Deum Patrem dirigantur; in Oriente plures ad
Filium: nempe, quia magis conflictata est Arianorum, et aliorum
qui ejus Divinitatem impugnabant, contentionibus Orientalis, quam
Occidentalis Ecclesia.’”’— Renaudot, ad Liturg. Copt. S. Basil.,
vol. i, p. 262.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 247

of the Christian Faith’. As to this particular form, it
has so long prevailed, and has so well answered the
use intended, that, all things considered, there can be
no sufficient reason for changing any part of it, much
less for laying the whole aside. There are several
other Creeds, very good ones (though somewhat larger),
which, had they been made choice of for common use,
might possibly have done as well. The Creeds, I mean,
(of which there is a great number) drawn up after
the Council of Chalcedon, and purposely contrived to
obyiate all the heresies that ever had infested the
Christian Church. But those that dislike this Creed
would much more dislike the other, as being still more
particular and explicit in regard to the Nestorian,
Eutychian, and Monothelite heresies, and equally full
and clear for the doctrine of the Trinity.

To conclude: as long as there shall be any men left
to oppose the doctrines which this Creed contains, so
long will it be expedient, and even necessary, to con-
tinue the use of it, in order to preserve the rest; and,
I suppose, when we have none remaining to find fault
with the doctrines, there will be none to object against
the use of the Creed, or so much as to wish to have it
laid aside.

ἃ To this purpose speaks Johannes Pappus, in the name of the
Lutheran Churches, commenting on the Augsburg Confession :—

* Semper in Ecclesia Scriptorum quorundam publicorum usus
fuit, quibus doctrine Divinitus revelate de certis capitibus summa
comprehenderetur, et contra hvereticos, aliosque adversarios de-
fenderetur. Talia scripta, licet perbrevia, sunt Symbola illa totius
Ecclesiz, omnium hominum consensu recepta, Apostolicum, Nice-
num, Athanasianum.”—Joan. Papp., Comm. in Confess. August.,
oe ἘΣ this upon the credit of Nic. Serarius, who quotes the

passage from Pappus. Serar., in Symb. Athanas., Opuse. Theol.,
vol, ii. p. 9.

APPENDIX.

Cuarrer III.

A.D. 570. I intimated above (p. 45) that Fortunatus’s
Comment upon the Athanasian Creed, though before
published, might deserve a second publication, and be
made much more correct than it appears in Murato-
rius’s second tome of Anecdota.

I have made frequent use of it in the preceding
sheets; and now my design, in reprinting it, is to let
the reader see what the Comment is which I so fre-
quently refer to, that so he may judge for himself whe-
ther it really be what I suppose, and I think with
good reason, A Comment of the Sixth Century, and
justly ascribed to Fortunatus. I have endeavoured to
make it as correct as possible, by such helps as I could
anywhere procure, which are as follow :—

1. The printed copy of it, published by Muratorius,
from a manuscript of the Ambrosian Library, about 600
years old.

2. A manuscript copy from Oxford, found among
Franciscus Junius’s MSS. (No. 25), which appears, by
the character, to be about 800 years old. As it is older
than Muratorius’s, so is it also more faithful; and
though it has a great many faults, both in the ortho-
graphy and syntax, owing either to the ignorance of

APPENDIX. 249

the age or of the copyist, yet it does not appear to have
been interpolated like the other, or to have been indus-
triously altered in any part.

3. Besides those two copies of the entire Comment,
T have had some assistance from such parcels of it as
are to be met with in writers that have borrowed from
it. Bruno’s Comment furnishes us with some parts
which he had taken into his own. But there is, among
the supposititious works ascribed to St. Austin, a trea-
tise intituled, Sermo de Symbolo*, which has several
scattered fragments of this very Comment in it. The
whole treatise is a farrago, or collection from several
other writers, as Ruffinus, Ceesarius, Pope Gregory L.,
and Ivo Carnotensis. By the last mentioned, one may
be assured that the collection is not older than the
close of the eleventh century; it may be later. It will
be serviceable, however, so far as it goes, for restoring
the true readings where our copies are corrupt, which is
the use I make of it.

Nothing now remains but to lay before the learned
reader Fortunatus’s Comment in its native language,
and therewith to close up our inquiries concerning the
Athanasian Creed.

The Various Lections, all that are properly such, are
carefully noted at the bottom of the page, that so the
reader may judge whether the text be what it should
be, or correct it, if it appears otherwise. But I should
hint, that there are several little variations in the
Oxford manuscript, which I take no notice of, as not
being properly Various Lections.

1. Such as are merely orthographical: as a permu-

a August., vol. vi. App., p. 278.

250 APPENDIX.

tation of letters, using d for ¢, in capud and reliquid, for
caput and reliquit; e for 7, in Trea for Tria; and τ for
6, in calit for calet, and the like: o for wu in servolis,
p for ὁ in optenit for obtinet; v consonant for 6, in
enarravit for enarrabit, though such as this last is
might be noted among Various Lections in cases more
disputable.

To this head may be referred some antique and now
obsolete spellings: cnmensus for ¢mmensus, inmortalis for
tmmortalis, inlesus for tllesus, conlocavit for collocavit,
dinoscitur for dignoscitur, and the like.

2. Active terminations of verbs for passive: as finire
for finiri, cogitare for cogitari; though these may be
referred to the former head, being only changing the
letter ¢ for the letter e. Dominat for dominatur I take
notice of among the Various Lections.

3. Faults in the formation of verbs: as abstuleret for
tolleret, vivendos for viventes; to which may be added
morsit for momordit, having been long out of use.

4. Manifest faults in concord: as humani carnis for
humane, eodem captivitate for eadem. But where there
can be any doubt of the construction, I mark such
among the Various Lections, leaving the reader to judge
of them.

These and other the like niceties are generally neg-
lected in editions of authors, it being both needless and
endless to note them. But I was willing to hint some-
thing of them in this place, because they may be of use
to scholars for the making a judgment of the value of
a manuscript ; and sometimes of the time or place; as
also of the manner how a copy was taken, whether by
the ear or by the eye, from word of mouth, or merely

APPENDIX. 251

from a writing laid before the copyist. Besides that, if
we can distinguish in the present case, as perhaps a good
eritie may, the particularities of the author from those
of his transcribers, they may possibly afford some addi-
tional argument for the ascertaining the author of the
Comment.

EXPOSITIO FIDEI CATHOLIC FORTUNATI®.

Scrrpra anno circiter 570. Quicunque vult salvus esse”,
ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam Fidem : Quam
nisi quisque integram, tnviolatamque servaverit, absque
dubio in eternum peribit ©.

Fides dicitur credulitas, sive credentia*. [Primo
ergo omnium Fides necessaria est, sicut Apostolica
docet auctoritas dicens; sine Fide impossibile est pla-
cere Deo. Constat enim neminem ad veram pervenire
posse beatitudinem, nisi Deo placeat; et Deo neminem
placere posse, nisi per Fidem. Fides namque est bono-
rum omnium fundamentum, Fides humane salutis ini-
tium. Sine hac nemo ad filiorum Dei potest consortium
pervenire; quia sine ipsa nec in hoe seculo quisquam
justificationis consequitur gratiam, nec in futuro vitam
possidebit seternam. Et si quis heic non ambulaverit
per fidem, non perveniet ad speciem beatam Domini
nostri Jesu Christi®]. Catholica universalis dicitur, id

5. Ita se habet titulus in Codice Muratorii. Aliter in Oxoniensi,
viz. Hapositio in Fide Catholica: pro in Fidem Catholicam, ex
corrupta loquendi ratione apud scriptores zetatis medie.

Ὁ Esse salvus. Cod. Murat.

¢ Posterior hee Symboli Clausula, incipiens a Quam nisi, non
habetur in Cod. Oxoniensi.

ὦ Ita Cod. Oxon. Prima heee pericope deest in Murator. Conf.
Brun. in Symb.

€ Quee uncinulis includuntur, non comparent in MS, Oxoniensi.
Nec enim Fortunati videntur esse, sed Alcuini potius ; apud quem
eadem fere verbatim leguntur (De id. Trin., lib. i. e. 2, p. 1257.
[707]). Alcuinus vero maximam partem mutuatus est a Fulgentio,

APPENDIX. 2538

est, recta, quam Ecclesia universa‘ tenere debet. Ec-
clesias congregatio dicitur Christianorum, sive conven-
tus populorum. [Non enim, sicut conventicula here-
ticorum, in aliquibus regionum partibus coarctatur, sed
per totum terrarum orbem dilatata diffunditur *. |

Ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate
veneremur. Et credamus, et colamus, et confiteamur.
[ Trinitatem in Personis, unitatem in substantia. Hane
quoque Trinitatem Personarum, atque unitatem naturse
Propheta Esaias revelatam sibi non tacuit, cum se dicit
Seraphim vidisse clamantia, Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Ubi prorsus in eo quod dici-
tur tertio Sanctus, Personarum Trinitatem ; in eo vero
quod semel dicimus Dominus Deus Sabaoth, divine
nature cognoscimus unitatem ’. |

Neque confundentes personas. Ut Sabellius errat, qui
ipsum dicit esse Patrem in Persona quem et Filium, ipsum
et Spiritum Sanctum. Non ergo confundentes Personas,

(De Fid. ad Petrum. Prolog., p.500). Sed varia exemplaria varie
sententiam claudunt. Fulgentius legit, Non perveniet ad speciem ;
nec quicquam ultra. Alcuinus, Non perveniet ad speciem beatze
visionis Domini nostri Jesu Christi. Ab utrisque abit Lectio
Muratorii.

£ Universa Ecclesia. Cod. Mur. et Brunonis.

g Cod. Muratorii habet quippe, post Kcclesia: quam voculam,
utpote ineptam, saltem otiosam, expunximus, Fide Cod, Oxoniensis.
Conf. Brunon. in hoe loco.

4 Uncis hic inclusa non babentur in Codice Oxoniensi. Verba
uimirum sunt, non Fortunati, sed Isidori Hispal. Orig., lib. viii.
ec. 1, p. 64. Alio proinde charactere imprimenda curavimus.

i Que uncis comprehensa bic legere est, non comparent in Codice
Oxoniensi. Verba sunt Alcuini (de Trin., lib. i. ὁ. 3, p. 1259 [709],
in quo eadem plane, similique ordine invenias, Sunt porro eadem,
uno vocabulo dempto, apud Fulgentium (de Fid. ad Petrum, ¢. 1.
§ 5, p. 503), ordine etiam tantum non eodem. Verba antem illa
introductoria (viz. Trinitatem in Personis, unitatem in substantia) ;
non leguntur in Fulgentio, nec quidem in Alcuino. Interpolator
ipse, uti videtur, ex proprio illa penu deprompta preemisit ceteris,
connexionis forte aliqualis conservande gratia.

254 APPENDIX.

quia tres omnino Persone sunt*. Est enim gignens,
genitus, et! procedens. Gignens est Pater, qui genuit
Filium ; Filius est genitus, quem genuit Pater; Spiritus
Sanctus est procedens, quia a Patre et Filio procedit.
Pater et Filius coterni 5101 sunt et coequales; et co-
operatores, sicut scriptum est; verbo Domini Ceeli fir-
mati™ sunt, id est, a Filio Dei creati, Spiritu® oris
ejus, omnis virtus eorum. Ubi sub singulari numero,
Spiritus ° ejus, dicit, [unitatem substantize Deitatis os-
tendit ; ubi sub plurali numero, omnis virtus eorum
dicit 41, Trinitatem Personarum aperte demonstrat, quia
tres unum sunt, et unum tres.

Neque substantiam separantes. Ut Arius garrit, qui
sicut tres personas esse dicit, sic et tres substantias esse
mentitur’. Filium dicit minorem quam Patrem, et
creaturam esse; Spiritum Sanctum adhuc minorem
quam Filium, et Patri et Filio eum esse adminis-
tratorem® adserit. Non ergo substantiam separantes,
quia tote tres Persons in substantia Deitatist unum
sunt.

k Tres Personze omnino sunt. Murat.

! Deest ‘et’ in Cod. Oxon.

m Formati. Cod. Oxon. Vid. Symb. Damasi dictum (apud Hie-
ronym., vol. vy. p. 122) unde hee ‘ Noster,’ mutatis mutandis de-
sumpsisse videtur.

« Spiritus. Cod. Oxon.

° Leg. ‘Spiritu,’ uterque vero codex habet ‘ Spiritus.’

P Dicitur. Cod. Murat.

4 Lacunam in Muratorio manifestam (quippe cum desint ea verba
uncis inclusa) ex Codice Oxoniensisupplevimus. Scilicet, vox ‘ dicit’
proxime recurrens librarii oculos (uti fit) fefellit.

τ Ita clare, Cod. Oxon. Aliter Muratorius ex vitioso Codice ;
Quia tres Personas esse dicit, si et tres substantias esse mentitur.
Sensus impeditus, aut nullus.

s Et Patris et Filii eum administratorem esse adserit. Cod.
Murat. Conf. Brunon.

t Divinitatis. Cod. Oxon.

APPENDIX. Doo

Alia est enim Persona Patris. (γαῖα Pater ingenitus
est, eo quod a nullo est genitus. Alia Persona Filii,
quia Filius a Patre solo est" genitus. Alia Spiritus
Sancti, quia a Patre et Filio Spiritus Sanctus’ proce-
dens est.

Sed Patris et Filit et Spiritus Sancti una est Divini-
tas. Idest, Deitas. A%qualis gloria: id est, claritas.
Cozxterna majestas: majestas gloria est, claritas, sive
potestas *.

Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis et Spiritus Sanctus.
Id est, in Deitate, et Omnipotentia.

Inereatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus et Spiritus
Sanctus. Id est, a nullo creatus’.

Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus et Spiri-
tus Sanctus. Non est mensurabilis in sua natura, quia
inlocalis est’, incireumscriptus, ubique totus, ubique
presens, ubique potens.

Aiternus Pater, eternus Filius, eternus et Spiritus
Sanctus. Id est, non tres eterni, sed in tribus Personis
unus Deus eternus, qui sine initio, et sine fine eternus
permanet.

Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omni-
potens et Spiritus Sanctus. Omnipotens dicitur, eo
quod omnia potest, et omnium obtinet potestatem*.

u A Patre est solo, Cod. Oxon.

τ Desunt ‘Spiritus Sanctus’ in Cod. Murat. que tamen retinui-
mus, tum fide Cod. Oxoniensis, tum quia in antecedentibus ‘ Pater,’
et ‘ Filius’ bis ponuntur, sicut et hic ‘Sp. Sanctus.’

x Cod, Oxoniensis legit ‘claritatis, sive potestas.’

y Cod. Oxoniensis legit ‘creati.’

* Muratorii exemplar insertum habet ‘et,’ quod delendum esse
censui, cum absit a Codice Oxon. et otiosum videatur.

a Fortunatus, in sua Hxposit. Symb. Apostolici, hee habet ; Om-
nipotens vero dicitur, eo quod omnia possit, et omnium obtinet

256 APPENDIX.

Ergo, si omnia potest, quid est quod non potest? Hoe
non potest, quod Omnipotenti non competit posse”.
Falli non potest [quia veritas est; infirmarl non po-
test], quia sanitas est; mori non potest, quia immor-
talis vita est ; finiri non potest, quia infinitus et peren-
nis est. .

Ita, Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus et Spiritus Sane-
tus. (Deus nomen est potestatis, non proprietatis 4. |
Proprium nomen est Patris Pater; et proprium nomen
est © Filii Filius; et proprium nomen est Spiritus Sancti
Spiritus Sanctus.

Ita, Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus et Spi-
ritus Sanctus. Dominus dicitur, eo quod omnia domi-
nat, et omnium est dominus dominator ‘.

Quia sicut singillatim (id est, sicut distinctim δ)

‘ potentatum.’ ed. Basil. ‘ obtineat potestatem.’ ed. Lugd. Preeluse-
rat Ruffinus, in Symbolum.

b §. Bruno, hune opinor locum pre oculis habens, his verbis
utitur: Ergo, si omnia potest, quid est quod non potest? Hoc non
potest, quod non convenit omnipotenti posse.—Brun., iz Symb.
Athands., p. 346.

ὁ Muratorius sententiani mancam, vitiatamque exhibet: Falli non
potest, quia Sanctus est ; omissis intermediis. Scilicet, vocabulum
proxime repetitum describentis oculum delusit: et ne nullus inde
eliceretur sensus, pro Sanitas substitutum est Sanctus. Heec porro
sibimet adoptavit S. Bruno, pauculis mutatis, vel interjectis, ad
hune modum: Falli non potest, quia veritas et sapientia est ; xgro-
tari aut infirmari non potest, quia Sanitas est ; mori non potest,
quia immortalis est ; finiri non potest, quia infinitus et peren-
nis est.

4 Deest hee clausula in Codice Murator. ; sed confer Symbolum
Damasi dictum, quod Gregorii Boetici creditur, apud August.,
vol. v. App., p. 5387. Item apud Hieronym., vol. v. p. 122.

€ Deest est. Murator. Conf. Brun.

f Dominat, pro Dominatur, et cum accusativo, ex vitiata infe-
rioris evi Latinitate, vel ex scribee imperitia. Aliter codex Mura-
torii, ex Isidori Orig. (lib. vii. ὁ. 1, p. 53). Dominus dicitur, eo
quod dominetur creature cunctee, vel quod creatura omnis Domi-
natui ejus deserviat.

& Distinctum, Oxon. Distincte. Murat.

APPENDIX. 257

unamguamgue Personam et Deum® et Dominum confiter:
Christiana veritate compellimur. Quia si me interro-
gaveris quid sit! Pater, ego respondebo; Deus, et Do-
minus. Similiter, si me interrogaveris* quid sit!
Filius, ego dicam; Deus, et Dominus. Et si dicis™,
quid est Spiritus Sanctus? Ego dico"; Deus, et
Dominus. Et in his tribus Personis, non tres Deos,
nec tres Dominos, sed in® his tribus, sicut jam su-
pra dictum est’, unum Deum, et unum Dominum
confiteor.

Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres. Id est, quia* Pater
semper Pater, nec aliquando Filius. Unus Filius, non
tres Filii: id est, quia Filius semper Filius, nee ali-
quando Pater. Unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus
Sancti: id est, quia Spiritus Sanctus semper est Spiri-
tus Sanctus, nec aliquando Filius, aut Pater. Hee est
proprietas Personarum.

Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius, aut posterius. Quia
sicut nunquam Filius sine Patre, sic nunquam fuit Pater
sine Filio, sic et nunquam fuit Pater et Filius sine Spi-

h Deest ‘et.’ Cod. Murator.

i Quidest. Murator, Eandem sententiam expressit S. Bruno, his
verbis ; Quia si me interrogaveris quid est Pater, ego respondeo ;
Deus, et Dominus. ;

k Et si me rogaveris. Cod. Oxon.

! Est. Murator. Locum sic exhibet S. Bruno ; Similiter, si inter-
rogaveris quid est Filius, ego dico, Deus et Dominus.

m Dicas. Murator.

n Dicam. Murator. Apud Brunonem sic legitur; Et si dicis,
quid est Spiritus Sanctus? Ego respondeo ; Deus, et Dominus.

ο Deest ‘in.’ Oxon.

P Supra dixi. Cod, Oxon. Sed Brunonis lectio Muratorii lectio-
nem confirmat.

4 Codex Oxon. pro ‘quia’ habet ‘ qui,’ in hoc loco, et in duobus
proxime sequentibus, Utrumlibet elegeris, eodem fere res redit.

τ In Cod. Oxon. deest ‘est.’

5

258 APPENDIX.

ritu Sancto®. Costerna ergo Trinitas, et inseparabilis
unitas, sine initio et sine fine *.

Nihil majus, aut minus. AEqualitatem Personarum
dicit, quia Trinitatis" eequalis est, et una Deitas*, Apo-
stolo docente*, et dicente: per ea, que facta sunt,
intellecta conspiciuntur; et per Creaturam Creator in-
telligitur, secundum has comparationes, et alias quam-
plures. Sol, Candor, et Calor, et tria sunt vocabula,
et tria unum ¥. Quod candet, hoe calet, et quod calet,
hoc candet: tria hee vocabula res una esse dignosci-
tur*. Ita* Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, tres
Person in Deitate, substantia> unum sunt; et indi-
vidua unitas recte creditur. Item de terrenis, Vena,
Fons, Fluvius, tria sunt® yocabula, et tria unum?
in sua natura. Ita trium Personarum, Patris et

8 Paulo aliter huncce locum expressit auctor Sermonis, inter
Augustini opera (vol. vi. App., p. 281): Quia sicut nunquam pater
sine Filio, nec Filius sine Patre; sic et nunquam fuit Pater, et
Filius sine Spiritu Sancto. Sed nihil mutandum contra fidem
exemplarium.,

Ὁ In Appendice preedicta, sic legitur: Cozterna ergo est Sancta
Trinitas, &c.

« Sancta Trinitas. Append.

Y Una est Deitas. Append. Una Deitatis. Oxon. male.

x In Cod. Oxoniensi, desunt illa ‘ docente et.’ Sed Append. lec-
tionem Muratorii tuetur, alio tamen verborum ordine; ‘ dicente,
atque docente.’

y Ita Muratorius cum Appendice predicta. Aliter MS. Oxon.,
viz., Tria sunt nomina, et res una; quie eodem recidunt.

* In Appendice sic se habent; Tria hee vocabula res una cogs
noscitur.

2 “ Kt’ post ‘ita.’ Oxon.

Ὁ Codices habent ‘ Substantie’ (quod tamen in Appendice pre-
dicta omittitur prorsus), et comma interponunt post ‘ Persons.’
Prava interpunctio corrigenda est, et levicula mutatione legendum
“substantia :’ quod et vidit et monuit vir quidam amicissimus simul
et perspicacissimus, ἢ

€ Appendix legit ‘hec,’ non ‘sunt.’ Oxon. ‘tria itemque sunt.’

4 Oxoniensis, ‘res una.’ Append. cum Muratorio, ‘ unum,’

APPENDIX. 259

Filii et Spiritus Sancti, substantia et Deitas unum
est *.

Est ergo Fides recta, ut eredamus et confiteamur, quia
Dominus noster Jesus Christus'. Jesus Hebraice, Latine
Salvator dicitur. [Christus Greece, Latine unctus voca-
tur. Jesus ergo dicitur%] eo quod salvat populum :
Christus, eo quod Spiritu Sancto Divinitus sit delibu-
tus, sicut in ipsius Christi! Persona Esaias ait; Spiritus
Domini super me, propter quod unxit me, &c. Ita et
Psalmista de Christo Domino dicit*, Unxit te Deus,
Deus tuus, oleo letitize pre consortibus tuis.

Dei Filius, Deus pariter et homo est. Filius a feli-
citate parentum dicitur: homo ab humo dicitur; id

est, de humo! factus est.

Deus est™ ex substantia Patris ante secula genitus. Id
est, Deus de Deo, lumen de lumine, splendor de splen-
dore, fortis de forti, virtus de virtute, vita de vita,
eternitas de eternitate: per omnia, idem® quod Pater
in Divina substantia hoc est et® Filius. Deus enim”

© Ita Murat. et Append. Oxoniensis legit, Substantia, Deitas
una est.

f Oxoniensis adjicit, Dei Filius et homo est. Inepte hoc loco,
quod ex sequentibus patebit.

5. Muratorii Codex omittit verba illa intermedia, uncis inclusa.
Scilicet, illud ‘dicitur’ proxime repetitum amanuensi hic iterum
fraudi fuit.

h “Divinitus sit’ desunt in Cod. Oxon.

i Deest ‘ Christi.’ Murator.

Κ᾿ Oxoniensis breviter, Item in Psalmo, unxit, &e. Notandum
porro, quod queedam habet Fortunatus noster, in commentario suo
in Symbol. Apostol. hisce jam proxime descriptis perquam similia.
Confer etiam Ruffin. in Symbol., ce. 6, inter Oper. Hieronym.,
vol. v. p. 131; et in Heurtl. de Fide, &c., p. 110.

1 De humo terre. Murator.

= Non habetur ‘est’ in Murat.

Ὁ Pro ‘idem,’ ‘id est,’ Murator.

° Deest ‘et’ Cod. Oxon. His quoque gemina fere habes in Hz-
posit. in Symbol. A postolicum.

P Deest ‘enim’ Cod. Oxon; confer Symb. Damasi dictum.

260 APPENDIX.

Pater Deum Filium genuit, non voluntate, neque ne-
cessitate, sed natura. Nec queratur quomodo genuit
Filium 4, quod et angeli nesciunt, prophetis est incog-
nitum: unde’ eximius Propheta Esaias dicit; genera-
tionem ejus quis enarrabit? Ac si diceret ὃ, angelorum
nullus, prophetarum nemot. Nee inenarrabilis, et in-
eestimabilis Deus" a servulis suis discutiendus est, sed
fideliter credendus’, et pariter diligendus.

Et homo* ex substantia matris, in seculo natus. Dei
Filius, Verbum PatrisY, caro factum. Non? quod
Divinitas mutasset Deitatem, sed adsumpsit humanita-
tem. Hoc est, Verbum caro factum est, ex utero Vir-
ginis veram humanam carnem traxit. Et de utero
Virginali verus homo, sicut et verus Deus, est in
seculo natus, salva virginitatis gratia*; quia mater,
que genuit, Virgo ante partum, et Virgo post partem
permansit >,

In seculo. Id est, in isto sexto miliario, in quo nune
sumus [seecula enim generationibus constant, et inde
seecula, quod se sequantur; abeuntibus enim aliis, alia

4 Quomodo genitus sit, quod Angeli. ... Oxon. At Muratoril
lectioni astipulatur Appendix ad Augustin., vol. vi. p. 279 ; et For-
tunatus ipse, Hxpos. in Symb, Apostol., p. 1151.

τ Unde et isdem. Cod. Murat. conf. Fortunat. in Symb. Apo-
stolicum.

5. Muratorius habet ‘ dixisset.’

τ Angelorum nemo, Prophetarum nullus. Cod. Oxon.

ἃ Deest ‘Deus.’ Oxon.

γ᾿ Confer Fortunat. in Symb. Apostol. et Append., apud August.,
p. 279, et Ruffin. Symb.

= Homo est. Cod, Oxon.

y Dei Filius, Verbum caro: Murat. Dei Filius Verbo Patris
caro: Cod. Oxon. Ex utrisque veram, opinor, lectionem resti-
tuimus,

z Et non. Cod. Murator, Expunximus illud ‘et,’ fide Codicis Oxon.

2 ‘Salva virginitatis gratia’ desunt in Cod. Oxoniensi.

+ Ita Cod. Oxon. Muratorius, Quia mater genuit, et virgo mausit
ante partum, et post partum.

APPENDIX. 261

succedunt*]. ‘Deus et homo Christus Jesus, unus
Dei Filius et ipse Virginis Filius. Quia dum Deitas in
utero Virginis humanitatem adsumpsit, et cum ea per
portam Virginis integram, et illesam, nascendo mun-
dum ingressus est Virginis Filius; et hominem (leg.
homo) quem adsumsit, id (leg. idem) est Dei Filium
(leg. Filius) sicut jam supra diximus; et Deitas et hu-
manitas in Christo; et Dei Patris pariter et Virginis
Matris Filius.”

Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo. Id est, verus Deus,
et verus homo’. Ex anima rationali: et non ut Apol-
linaris* hereticus dixit primum, quasi Deitas pro anima
fuisset in carne Christi; postea, cum per evangelicam
auctoritatem fuisset* convictus, dixit: Habuit quidem
animam qué vivificavit corpus, sed non rationalem.
E contrario ὅ, dicit qui Catholice sentit; Ex anima ra-
tionali et humana carne subsistens: id est, plenus
homo, atque perfectus.

¢ Non comparent in Codice Oxoniensi. Verba sunt Isidor.
Orig., lib. v. c. 38, p. 42. Que sequuntur proxime, Deus et homo,
&ec., usque ad Matris Filius, desunt omnia in Codice Muratorii:
ex Oxoniensi solo descripta dedimus. Videntur mihi Fortunati re
vera esse, sed Librarii culpa (ut alia multa) mirum in modum vi-
tiata; quee quidem ex conjectura aliquatenus corrigere volui, ut
Syntaxis saltem sibi constet, donec certiora, et meliora ex Codi-
cibus (si forte supersint aliqui) eruantur. Czeterum, ut Fortunato
nostro heee ascribam, illud suadet maxime, quod in expositione
sua in Symbolum Apostolicum gemina fere habet de porta Virginis,
eisdemque ibi nonnullis phrasibus utitur quibus hic usus est.
Confer Symbolum Ruffini, a quo solenne est nostro (quippe qui et
ipse Aquileize olim Doctrina Christiana initiatus fuerat) tum verba,
tum sententias mutuari.

4 Deest hee clausula in Cod. Oxon. ob vocabulum repetitum.

6. Paulinaris, Cod. Oxon. Lectio nata ex sermone simplici et
plebeio.

f Fuit, Cod. Oxon.

s Et 6 contrario iste dicit: Murat. Delevimus illa ‘et,’ atque
‘iste,’ quee sententiam turbant, fide Codicis Oxoniensis.

« Subsistit, Cod. Oxon.

262 APPENDIX.

Aqualis Patri secundum Divinitatem ; minor Patre
secundum Humanitatem. Id est, secundum formam servi
quam adsumere dignatus est.

Qui liceti Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus
est Christus. Τὰ est, due substantie in Christo, Deitas
et humanitas, non duse persons, sed una est persona *.

Unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in carnem',
sed adsumptione humanitatis in Deum’. Id est: non
quod Divinitas, quae incommutabilis est, sit conversa in
carnem™, sed ideo unus, eo quod humanitatem adsump-
sit, coepit™ esse quod non? erat, et non amisit quod erat ;
coepit esse homo? quod antea non fuerat, non amisit
Deitatem que incommutabilis in eternum permanet 4.

Unus omnino, non confusione substantia, sed unitate
Persone. 1d est; Divinitas incommutabilis' cum ho-
mine, quem adsumere dignata® est, sicut scriptum est ;
Verbum tuum, Domine, in eternum permanet. Id est,
Divinitas cum humanitate; ut diximus duas substan-
tias unam Personam* esse in Christo; ut sicut ante ad-

i «Certe,’ loco τοῦ ‘licet.’ Cod. Oxon.

k «Est Persona’ desunt in Cod. Oxon.

! Cod. Oxoniensis habet, ‘Carne,’ et Deo :’ errore, uti credo, per-
vetusto, multisque et antiquissimis exemplaribus communi. Quod
si Verbis in Commentario immediate sequentibus (ex Muratorii
lectione) steterimus, Fortunatus ipse nobis auctor erit, ut et Deum,
et carnem, pro genuina lectione habeamus,

m Que immutabilis et inconvertibilis est, Caro; sed, &c. Cod.
Oxon.

" Tncipit. Cod. Oxon.

ο Deest ‘non’ Cod. Murat. male.

P Deest ‘homo’ in Cod, Oxon. perperam, item, ‘incipit,’ pro
* coepit.’

4 Muratorius legit, Quia incommutabilis in eternum permanet :
Cod. Oxoniensis, Que immutabilis in eternum permansit. Ex
utrisque tertiam lectionem confecimus ; que, opinor, ceteris et
venustior est, et aptior.

τ Immutabilis. Cod. Oxon. s Dignatus. Cod. Oxon.

t «Personam’ perperam omittit Cod. Oxoniensis.

APPENDIX. 263

sumptionem [carnis, eterna fuit Trinitas, ita post ad-
sumptionem"] humane nature, vera maneat Trinitas;
ne propter adsumptionem humane carnis dicatur esse
quaternitas, quod absit a fidelium cordibus, vel sen-
sibus, dici, aut cogitari, cum, ita’ ut supradictum est
et Unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in Unitate vene-
randa sit.

Nam sicut anima rationalis, et caro unus est homo ;
ita Deus, οὐ Homo unus est Christus. Etsi Deus*, Dei
Filius, nostram luteam et mortalem carnem, nostre re-
demptionis conditionem’ adsumpserit, se tamen nulla-
tenus’ inquinavit, neque naturam Deitatis mutavit.
Quia si sol, aut ignis aliquid immundum tetigerit, quod
tangit purgat, et se nullatenus coinquinat: ita Deitas
Sarcinam quoque* nostre humanitatis adsumpsit, se ne-
quaquam coinquinavit, sed nostram naturam carnis ?,

ἃ Desunt in Codice Oxoniensi: pretermissa scilicet festinantis
Librarii incuria, ob vocem iteratam.

v Pro ‘cum ita,’ habet Cod, Oxon. ‘nisi ita.’

x Murator. Cod. omittit ‘ Deus.’

y Cod. Oxoniensis, Nostri Redemptionis conditionis adsumpsit.
Nescio an melius Muratorius ; Nostram luteam, et mortalem car-
nem nostre conditionis adsumpserit. Sed levi mutatione, recte in-
cedunt omnia. Conditio, apud Scriptores quinti et sexti seculi, est
servile onus, opusve.

z Cod. Oxon. legit ‘Se nullatenus.? Murator. : Sed tamen se nul-
latenus. Noster vero in Lxposit. in Symb. Apostol. in simili causa,
hac utitur phrasi, se tamen non inquinat.

8. Oxoniensis habet, Deitas sarcinamque nostre humanitatis ad-
sumpsit, se nequaquam, ὅθ. Muratorius hoc modo; Deitas sarci-
nam, quam ex nostra humanitate adsumpsit, nequaquam coinqui-
navit. Lectio frigida prorsus, et inepta. Juvat hue conferre que
Fortunatus noster ad Symb. Apost. in eandem sententiam breviter
dictavit, p. 1152.

“* Quod vero Deus majestatis de Maria in carne natus est, non est
sordidatus nascendo de Virgine, qui non fuit pollutus hominem con-
dens de pulvere. Denique sol, aut ignis, si lutum inspiciat, quod
tetigerit purgat, et se tamen non inquinat.” Conf. Ruffin. Symb.,
(p. 183), ¢. 9, p. 118.

Ὁ Nostree nature carnem. Murat.

264 APPENDIX.

quam adsumpsit, purgavit, et a maculis, et sordibus
peccatorum, ac vitiorum expiavit: sicut Esaias ait; 1056
infirmitates nostras accepit, et segrotationes portavit.
Ad hoe secundum humanitatem natus est, ut infirmi-
tates nostras acciperet, et segrotationes portaret: non
quod ipse infirmitates, vel «grotationes in se haberet,
quia salus mundi est; sed ut eas a nobis tolleret, dum
sue -sacree passionis gratia, et sacramento‘, chirogra-
pho adempto, redemptionem pariter et salutem anima-
rum nobis condonaret.

Qui passus est pro salute nostra. Id est, secundum id
guod pati potuit: quod est, secundum humanam natu-
ram; nam secundum divinitatem, Dei Filius impassi-
bilis est.

Descendit ad inferos*. Ut* protoplastum Adam‘, et
patriarchas, et prophetas, et omnes justos, qui pro
originali peccato ibidem detinebantur, liberaret; et de®
vineulis ipsius” peccati absolutos, de eadem captivitate,
eti infernali* loco, suo sanguine redemptos, ad super-
nam patriam, et ad perpetuze vite gaudia revocaret.
Reliqui', qui supra originale peccatum ™ principalia eri-
mina™ commiserunt, ut adserit Scriptura, in poenali

© Muratorius legit; Dum suze sacre passionis gratiam, et sacra-
menta: nullo sensu. Oxoniensis, Dum suze sacre passionis gratie
(pro gratia) ac sacramento.

ἃ Ad inferna. Cod. Oxon. Q. annon vetustissima hee fuerit
lectio in Symbolo Athanasiano, sicut in Apostolico ?

€ *Qui,’ loco τοῦ ‘ut.’ Cod. Oxon. At Sermo de Symbolo, in
Append. ad August. (vol. vi. p. 281), legit, cum Muratorio, ‘ut.’

f Adam Protoplastum. Append.

& Et ut de. Append. 4 ‘Tpsius’ deest. Append.

i Deest ‘et,’ Cod. Oxon. k Inferni. Append.

! Muratorius habet ‘vero,’ post ‘reliqui.’ Oxon. non agnoscit,
nec Append.

m {τὰ legitur in Appendice. Oxoniensis, supra originale peccato :
Muratorius, supra originali peccato.

2 Principalem culpam, Append.

APPENDIX. 265

Tartaro remanserunt: sicut in persona Christi dictum
est per prophetam; Ero mors tua, O Mors; id est,
morte sua Christus humani generis inimicam mortem
interfecit, et vitam dedit. Ero morsus tuus, inferne.
Partim® momordit infernum, pro parte eorum quos libe-
ravit : partem reliquit, pro parte eorum qui pro princi-
palibus criminibus in tormentis remanserunt.

Surrexit a mortuis primogenitus mortuorum. Et alibi
Apostolus dicit ; ipse primogenitus,ex multis fratribus.
Id est, primus a mortuis resurrexit. Et multa corpora?
sanctorum dormientium cum eo surrexerunt, sicut
evangelica auctoritas’ dicit: sed ipse, qui caput est,
prius, deinde quit membra sunt continuo.

Postea ascendit ad celos. Sicut Psalmista ait; as-
cendit® in altum, captivam duxit captivitatem, id est,
humanam naturam, que prius sub peccato venundata
fuit, et captivata ; eamque redemptam captivam t duxit
in celestem altitudinem : et ad celestis Patrie ὃ Reg-
num sempiternum, ubi antea non fuerat, eam Y colloca-
vit, in gloriam sempiternam.

Sedet ad dexteram Patris. Id est, prosperitatem pa-
ternam, et in* eo honore, quod’ Deus est.

° Muratorius, et Oxoniensis, in utroque loco, ‘ Partem :’ Appen-
dix, in utroque, ‘ Partim.’ Media mihi lectio maxime arridet.

P Deest ‘corpora’ in Cod. Oxon.

4 In evangelica autoritate. Cod. Oxon.

r Que membra. Cod. Oxon.

s Ascendens. Murator.

τ Cont. Tractatum Anonymi de Essentia Divinitatis, apud Hie-
ronym., vol. v. p. 120; et apud Augustin., vol. viii. App., p. 69 ; et
Isid. Hisp. de Resur7v. Dom., c. 56, p. 577 (p. 860), ed. Paris.

« Cexlestem Patriam. Cod. Oxon.

v ἐπ᾽ pro ‘eam.’ Maurator.

x ‘In’ deest. Cod. Oxon.

y Mallem ‘quo,’ si per Codices liceret ; sed et ‘quod,’ adverbi-

aliter hic positum pro ‘quia,’ sensum non incommodum pre se
ferre videtur.

266 APPENDIX.

Inde venturus* judicare vivos et mortuos. Vivos dicit
eos quos tune adventus Dominicus in corpore viventes
invenerit [et mortuos, jam ante sepultos. Et aliter
dicit*]; vivos justos, et mortuos peccatores >.

Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent
cum corporibus suis; et reddituri sunt de factis propriis
rationem: et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam eter-
nam; qui vero mala, in ignem eternum. Hee est Fides
Catholica, quam nist quisque fideliter, firmiterque credi-
derit, salvus esse non poterit.

2 Venturus est. Murator.

a Quantum hic uncis includitur, omittit Codex Oxoniensis. De-
lusus est forsitan librarius per binas literulas ‘it’ bis positas: vel,
simili errore deceptus, integram lineam preterierit, dum in proxime
sequentem oculos conjecerat.

Ὁ Opere pretium est pauca hic subjicere, que noster habet in
expositione sua in Symb. Apostolicum, ‘‘judicaturus vivos, et mor-
tuos. Aliqui dicunt vivos, justos; mortuos vero injustos: aut
certe, vivos, quos in corpore invenerit adventus Dominicus, et mor-
tuos, jam sepultos. Nos tamen intelligamus vivos et mortuos, hoc
est animas et corpora pariter judicanda.”—Conf. Ruffin. Symb., ο. 33,
p. 135 (p. 140); Method. apud Phot. Codic. 234, p. 932; Isid.
Pelus., Hpist. 222, lib. i. p.64; Pseud. Ambros. de Trin., ec. 15,
vol. ii. App., p. 891.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS.

N.B. The titles of works that are referred to by Waterland, but
have not had the references verified for this edition, are printed
in italics. In all cases where the edition referred to is differ-
ent from that used by Waterland himself, the original refer-
ence has been retained within brackets in the notes.

ABELARDUS, Petrus (4th century). Opera, 4to. Paris, 1616.

Abbo Floriacensis (10th century). Liber Apologeticus ; in Gal-
landi’s Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. xiv., p. 137, &e.

Adalbertus (9th century). Profession of Faith; in Harduin,
vol. v., p. 1445.

Aineas Parisiensis (9th century). Liber adversus Greecos; in
d’Achery’s Spicilegium, vol. i., p. 113, &e.

Agobardus Lugdunensis (9th century). Opera. 2 vols., Svo.
Paris, 1666.

Alcuinus, Albinus Flaccus (8th century).: De Fide 8S. Trinitatis ;
in De la Bigne’s Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. iii., p. 1255, &e.
Alexander de Ales (183th century). Tabule questionum. 4 vols.,

Ato. Paris, 1516.
Alexander Natalis (17th century). Historia Ecclesiastica. 8 vols.,
fol. Paris, 1699.
Allatius Leo (17th century). De Ecclesiv Occidentalis atque
Orientalis perpetua consensione. 4to. Colon, 1648.
Grecia Orthodoxa. 2 vols., 4to. Rome, 1652.
Syntagma de Symbolo δ. Athanasii.
Alstedius, Joannes Henricus (17th century). Thesaurus Chro-
nologiz. 8vo. Herbip. Nass., 1624.
Ambrosius Mediolanensis (4th century). 2 vols., fol. Paris,
1686—1690.
Antelmius, Josephus (17th century). Nova de Symbolo Atha-
nasiano Disquisitio. 8vo. Paris, 1693.
De veris operibus Leonis Magni. Paris, 1669.
Antonius, Nicolaus (17th century). Bibliotheca Hispana Vetus.
2 vols., fol. Matriti, 1788.
Aquinas, Thomas (13th century). Opera, 17 vols., fol. Vene-
tiis, 1593, 1594.

268 INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS.

Arnoldus Lubecensis (12 century). Chronicon Slavorum; in
continuation of Helmoldi’s Chronicon. 4to. Lubeck, 1659.
Ashwell, George (17th century). Fides Apostolica. 8vo. Oxford,
1653.

Athanasius (4th century). Opera, Gr. et Lat. P. Nannii. 2 vols.,
fol. Heidelb., 1601.

Opera Omnia: opera et studio Monachorum Ordinis

S. Benedicti. 2 vols., fol. Paris, 1679—1700.

Athenagoras (2nd century). Legatio pro Christianis: in the
same volume with Justin Martyr.

Augustinus Hipponensis (5th century). Opera. 11 vols, fol.
Paris, 1679—1700.

Avitus Viennensis (5th and 6th centuries). Opera; in Sirmondi
Opera, vol. ii., p. 1, &e.

Bachiarius (5th century). Fides; in Muratori’s Anecdota,
vol.ii., p. 9, &e.

Balbus Januensis, Joannes (13th century). Catholicon Magnum.
Fol. Rothomagi, 1506.
Bale, Joannes (15th century). Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris
Brytanniz Catalogus. 2 vols. in 1, fol. Basil, 1557—1559.
Baronius, Cesar (16th century). Annales Ecclesiastici. 12 vols.,
fol. Rome, Antverpie, Colonie, 1596—1624.

Baxter, Richard (17th century). Methodus Theologiwe Chris-
tiane. Fol. lLond., 1681.

Practical Works. 4 vols., fol. Lond., 1707.

Life of: see Calamy.

Beleth, John (12th century). Divinorum Officiorum Rationale ;
in the same volume with Durandus on the same subject.

Berno Augiensis (11th century). Epistola inedita; in Mabillon
de Cursu Gallicano, p. 396.

Beveridge, William (17th century). Works. 9 vols., 8vo. Lond.,
1824.

Bibliotheca Patrum, per Margarinum de la Bigne. 9 vols.,
fol. Paris, 1589.

Bibliotheca Maxima Veterum Patrum. 27 vols., fol. Lugd.,
1677.

Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, cura et studio Andres Gallandi.
14 vols., fol. Wenet., 1765—1781.

Bingham, Joseph (18th century). Origines Ecclesiastice. 8 vols.,
8vo. London, 1834.

Bona, Joannes (17th century). Opera. 4to. Antverpie, 1677.

Bruno Herbipolensis (11th century). Commentarii in totum
Psalterium, et in Cantica Vet. et N. Testamenti. 4to. Νο-
rimberg, 14.94.

—— Also in Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, vol. xviii, p. 65, &e.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS, 269

Cabasutius, Joannes (17th century). Notitia Ecclesiastica.
Fol. Lugd., 1685.

Cesarivs Arelatensis (6th century). Sermo de Symboli Fide et
Bonis Moribus ; in Augustine, vol. v., App., p. 399.
Calamy, Edmund (18th century). Abridgement of Baxter’s
History of his Life and Times. 2 vols., 8vo. Lond., 1713.
Calecas, Manuel (14th century). Contra Grecorum Errores ;
in Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, vol. xxvi., p. 382, &e.

De Principiis Fidei Catholice, in Combefis’ Auctarium
Novissimum, Part ii., p. 182, &e.

Calvisius, Seth (17th century). Opus Chronologicum. 4to.
Franef., 1629.

Cantilupe, Walter de (13th century). Synodical Constitutions ;
in Spelman’s Concilia, vol. ii., p- 240, &e.

Carranza, F. Barth. (16th century). Summa Conciliorum.
12mo. Lugd., 1587.

Catalogus Librorum MSS. in Bibliotheca C.C.C. in Cantabrigia.
Fol. Lond., 1722.

Cave, William (17th century). Lives of the Fathers. 2 vols.,
fol. Lond., 1683.

——_—_ Historia Literaria. 2 vols., fol. Lond., 1688.

Chillingworth, William (17th century). Works. Ninth edition.
Fol. Lond., 1727.

Clarke, Samuel (17th and 18th centuries). The Scripture Doc-
trine of the Trinity; in vol. iv. of his collected works.
4 vols., fol. Lond., 1738.

The same. First edition. Svo. Lond., 1712.

Clemens Alexandrinus (3rd century). Opera. 2 vols., fol.
Oxon., 1715.

Clemens Romanus (lst century). Epistole; in Jacobson’s
Patres Apostolici.

Collier, Jeremy (17th and 18th centuries). An Ecclesiastical
History of Great Britain. 2 vols., fol. Lond., 1708.

Combefis, Francois (17th century). Bibliothecee Grecorum Pa-
trum Auctarium Novissimum. Fol. Par., 1672.

Comber, Thomas (17th century). Companion to the Temple.
Fol. Lond., 1684.

Covel, John (17th and 18th centuries). Some Account of the
Present Greek Church. Fol. Cambridge, 1722.

Councils : see Carranza, Harduin, Labbe, Ruelius, Spelman.

Coxe, Henry Octavius (19th century). Catalogus Codicum MSS.
in Collegiis Aulisque Oxoniensibus. 2 vols., 4to. Oxon., 1852,

———_—_—_-————_—— Catalogus Codicum MSS.
Bibliothecze Bodleianz. 2 vols. in 3, 4to. Oxon., 1853—1858.

Cudworth, Ralph (17th century). The True Intellectual System
of the Universe. Fol. lLond., 1678.

270 INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS.

Cyparissiota, Joannes Sapiens (14th century). Expositio mate-
riararia eorum que de Deo a theologis dicuntur. 8vo. Rome,
1581. Quoted by Waterland from Bibl. Max. PP. Vol. xxi.

Cyprianus (8rd century). Opera. Fol. Paris, 1726.

Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus (4th century). Opera. Fol. Paris,
1720.

D’Achery, John Lucas (17th century). Acta Sanctorum ordi-
nis S. Benedicti; collegit J. L. D’Achery, et cum eo in
lucem edidit J. Mabillon. 9 vols., fol. Venet., 1733.

— Spicilegium, sive Collectio veterum aliquot Scriptorum.
8 vols., fol. Paris, 1723.

Damascenus, Joannes (8th century). Opera omnia, studio P. M.
Le Quien. 2 vols., fol. Venet., 1748.

Denebert (8th century). Professio Fidei, in Textus Roffensis,
p. 252.

Dodwell, Henry (17th and 18th centuries). A Discourse con-
cerning the Use of Incense in Divine Offices. 8vo. Lond.,1711.

Dupin: see Pinn.

Durandus, Gulielmus (13th century). Rationale Divinorum
Officiorum. S8vo. Antverp., 1576.

Durellus, Joannes (17th century). Ecclesiz Anglicane Vindi-
cie. 4to. lLond., 1669.

Dionysius Alexandrinus (8rd century). Opera. Fol. Paris, 1796.

Dionysius Romanus (8rd century). Fragmentum ady. Sabellia-
nos; in Routh’s Rel. Sacr. Vol. iii., p. 371, &e.

Epiphanius (4th century). Opera omnia, ex recensione et cum
notis Petavii. 2 vols., fol. Paris, 1662.

Fabricius, John Albert (18th century). Bibliotheca Greca.
14 vols., 4to. Hamburg, 1716—1728.

Faustinus Presbyter (4th century). De Trinitate, sive de Fide,
contra Arianos; in Bibl. Max. PP., vol. v., p. 637, &e.

Fleckman. Variarum lectionum congeries; appended to Nan-
nius’ edition of Athanasius.

Fortunatus Venantius (6th century). Expositio Fidei Catho-
licze, printed in this book.

— — In Symbolum Apostolicum Expositio, in
Bibl. Max. PP., vol. x., p. 520, &c.

Fulgentius Ruspensis (6th century). Opera. 4to. Paris, 1643.

Gallandi: see Bibliotheca Patrum.

Gavanti, Bartholomew (17th century). Commentaria in Rubricas
Missalis et Breviarii Romani. 2 vols., fol. Rome, 1628.

Genebrard, Gilbert (16th century). In Athanasii Symbolum

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS. 971

Commentarium; printed at the end of his edition of the Latin
Psalter. S8vo. Lugd., 1607.

Gennadius Massiliensis (5th century). De Ecclesiasticis Dogma-
tibus ; in 8. Augustine’s Works, vol. viii., p. 75, &e.

— Illustrium Virorum Catalogus; in S. Je-
rome’s Works, vol. v., p. 26, &e.

Grabe, John Ernest (17th century). Vetus Testamentum, ex
versione LXX. Interpretum. 4 vols., fol. Oxon., 1709.

Gregorius Nazianzenus (4th century). Opera omnia. 2 vols.,
fol. Paris, 1609—1611.

Gregorius Nyssenus (4th century). Quoted from Harduin,
vol. iii., p. 106.

Gualdo Corbeiensis (11th century). Vita Anscharii; in Lambe-
cius’ Origines Hamburgenses, p. 322.

Gundling, Wolfgang (17th century). Note in Eustratii Johan-
nidis Zialowski Delineationem Ecclesiz Grace. 8vo. Norib.,
1680. -

Hampole, Ricardus (14th century). Symboli Apostolici et Atha-
nasii enarratio; in Bibl. Max. PP., vol. xxvi., p. 624, &e.

Harduin, Joannes (18th century). Conciliorum collectio regia
maxima. 11 vols., [0]. Paris, 1715.

Harris, John (18th century). A Compleat Collection of Voyages
and Travels. 2 vols., fol. Lond., 1705.

Hatto, or Ahyto of Basil (9th century). Capitulare; in Har-
duin’s Councils, vol. ii., p. 1241.

Heidegger, John Henry (17th century). Dissertationes Selectz,
Sacram Theologiam illustrantes. 3 vols., 4to. Tiguri, 1674
—1690.

Helvicus, Christopher (17th century). Theatrum Historicum et
Chronologicum. Fol. Oxon., 1651.

Heurtley, Carolus A. (19th century). De Fide et Symbolo.
12mo. Oxon., 1869.

Hickes, George (17th and 18th centuries). A Collection of Ser-
mons. 2 vols., 8vo. Lond., 1713.

Linguarum Vett. Septentrionalium Thesaurus.
3 vols., fol. Oxon., 1703—1705.

Hieronymus, Eusebius (4th century). Opera. 5 vols., fol. Paris,
1693—1706.

Higden, Ranulphus (14th century). Polychronicon, with trans-
lation by John Trevisa. New edition. By Babington Churchill.
2 vols., 8vo. Lond., 1865.

Hilarius Arelatensis (5th century). Vita S. Honorati Arelaten-
sis; in Leo’s Works, vol. i., p. 752, &e.

Hildegardis (12th century). Ad Sorores suas Explicatio Symboli
S. Athanasii; in Bibl. Max. PP., vol. xxv., p. 535, &e.

272 INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS.

Hincmarus Remensis (9th century). Opera. 2 vols., fol. Paris,
1645.

Hippolytus Portuensis (3rd century). Opera. 2 vols., fol.
Hamburg, 1716.

Hody, Humphrey (17th and 18th centuries). De Bibliorum
Textibus Originalibus. Fol. Oxon., 1705.

Honoratus Massiliensis (5th century). Vita S. Hilarii, in vol. i.
of Leo’s works.

Honorius Augustodunensis (12th century). Gemma Anime, sive
de Diversis Officiis et Antiquo Ritu Missarum ; in Bibl. Max.
RBS volerxx., p. 963, cc:

Hugo a Sancto Victore (12th century). Opera. 3 vols., fol.
Paris, 1526.

Ignatius Theophorus (2nd century). Opera vera et supposititia ;
in Coteler’s Patres Apostolici. 2 vols., fol. Antverp., 1698.
— Kpistole Septem genuine; in Jacobson’s
Patres Apostolici.

Trenzus (2nd century). Opera. Fol. Paris, 1710.

Isidorus Hispalensis (7th century). Opera omnia. Fol. Colon.,
1617.

Isidorus Pelusiota (5th century). Epistolarum libri quinque.
Fol. Paris, 1638.

Jacobson, W. (19th century). Patrum Apostolicorum que su-
persunt. 2 vols., 8vo. Oxon., 1863.

Joannes Antiochenus (5th century). Epistola ad 8. Cyrillum
Alexandrinum ; in Routh’s Opuscula, vol. ii., p. 203, Kec.

Joannes Januensis: see Balbus.

Justinus Martyr (2nd century), Opera. Fol. Paris, 1742.

Kirkham, Walter de (13th century). Constitutiones; in Spel-
man’s Concilia, vol. ii., p. 292, &e.

Labbe, Philip (17th century). Concilia Sacrosancta. 17 vols.,
fol. 1671.

—— De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Dissertatio. 2 vols.,
8vo. Paris, 1660.

Lambecius, Petrus (17th century). Commentarium de Biblio-
theca Vindobonensi; octo libris, fol. Vindobone, 1665—1679.

Origines Hamburgenses. 4to. Hamburg,

1652.
Langbaine, Gerard. (17th century). Letter to Usher; in Usher’s
Letters, p. 5138. ;

Le Cointe, Carolus (17th century). Annales Eeclesiastidi Fran-
corum. 8 vols., ful. Paris, 1665—1683.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS. 273

Le Long, James (18th century). Bibliotheca Sacra. 2 vols.,
fol. Paris, 1723.

Leo Magnus (5th century). Opera post Paschalii Quesnelli
recensionem exacta. 2vols., fol. Paris, 1675.

Leporius Monachus (5th century). Libellus emendationis, sive
satisfactionis, confessionem fidei Catholice continens ; in Bibl.
Max. PP. Vol. vii., p. 1, ὅδ:

Lepusculus, Sebastian (16th century). Collection of documents
in Munster’s “ Historiarum Josephi (Gorionidis) Compendium.”’
8vo. Basil, 1559.

Le Quien, Michael (18th century). Dissertationes Damascenice ;
in vol. i. of his edition-of Joannes Damascenus.

Panoplia contra Schisma Grecorum. 4to, Paris,
1718. Published under the pseudonym of Stephanus de
Altimura.

L’Estrange, Hamon (17th century). The Alliance of Divine
Offices. Fol. Lond., 1659.

Ludolphus, Job (17th century). Historia Mthiopica. Fol.
Franef., 1681,

Ludolphus Saxo (14th century). Vita Christi. Fol. Paris, 1534.

Luther, Martin (16th century). Opera Latina. 7 vols., fol.
Witenborg., 1550—1572.

Mabillon, John (16th and 17th centuries). Acta Sanctorum :
see d’Achery.

De Liturgia Gallicana; et de Cursu Gallicano.

4to. Paris, 1685.

— De Re Diplomatica. Fol. Paris, 1681—1704.

Marcus Ephesius (15th century). Disputations at the Council
of Florence; in Harduin, vol. ix.; quoted also in Silv.
Sguropulos, p. 150.

Martene, Edmund (18th century). De Antiquis Heclesie Ritibus.
3 vols., 4to. Rothomagi, 1700—1702.

Melito (2nd century). Fragmenta; in Routh’s Reliquiz Sacre,
vol. v., p. 113, &e.

Methodius Patavensis (8rd century). De Resurrectione; in
Photius’ Bibliotheca, codex 234.

Convivium decem virgi-
num ; in Combefis’ Auctarium Novissimum, p. 64, &c.

Metrophanes Critopulos. Confessio Catholice et Apostolice in
Oriente Ecclesia. Gir. et Lat. ed. J. Horneius. 4to. Helm-
stadt, 1661.

Montfaucon, Bernard de (17th and 18th centuries). Diarium
Italicum. 4to. Paris, 1702.

— Diatribe in Symbolum Quicunque; in the Benedic-

tine edition of 8. Athanasius, vol. ii., p. 719, Ke.

T

274 INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS.

Muratori, Ludovicus Antonius (17th and 18th centuries). Anec-
dota ex Ambrosiane Bibliothecse codicibus. 2 vols., fol.
Mediolani, 1697.

Nesselius, Daniel (17th century). Catalogus Codicum MSS.
Grecorum necnon linguarum Orientalium bibliothece Cesarez
Vindobonensis. 6 vols., fol. Vindob., 1690.

Nicholls, William (17th and 18th centuries). Defensio Ecclesie
Anglicane. 12mo. Lond., 1707.

Novatianus (3rd century). Tractatus de Trinitate; in the same
volume with Tertullian.

Olivet, Monks of Mount. Quoted by Le Quien in his Disserta-
tiones Damascenice.

Origen (3rd century). 4 vols., fol. Paris, 1733—1759.

Orosius, Paulus (5th century). Epistola ad Augustinum ; in
Augustine’s works, vol. viii., p. 609.

Osoma Petrus de (15th century). Commentaria in Symbolum
Quicunque vult, §c. 4to. Paris, 1478.

Otto Frisingensis (12th century). Chronicon. Fol. Basil.,
1569.

Oudin, Casimir (17th and 18th centuries). Commentarius de
Scriptoribus Ecclesie antiquis. 3 vols., fol. Lips., 1722.

Pagi, Antonius (17th century). Critica Historico-Chronologica
in Annales Baroni. Fol. Paris, 1689.

Papebrochius, Daniel (17th and 18th centuries). Responsio ad
Exhibitionem Errorum ; quoted in Muratori’s Anecdota,
vol. 11., p. 223.

Pappus, Joannes. Commentary on the Confession of Augsburg ;
quoted in Serarius, Opuscula, vol. ii. p. 9.

Pareus, David (16th and 17th centuries). Symbolum B. Atha-
nasit, notis breviter declaratum.

Paululus, Robertus (12th century). Quoted in Hugo a Sancto
Victore, vol. 111. p. 223,

Pearson, John (17th century). An Exposition of the Creed; re-
vised and corre:ted by the Rey. E. Burton. Fourth edition.
S8vo. Oxford, 1857.

Waterland quotes from the third edition, fol., Lond., 1669,
the latest in Pearson’s lifetime.

Pelagius (6th century). Symboli explanatio ; in Jerome’s works,
vol. v., p. 123, &e.

Petavius, Dionysius (17th century). Opus de theologicis Dog-
matibus. 6 vols., fol. Antverp., 1700.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS. 275

Philastrius Brixiensis (4th century). Liber de Heresibus ; in
Bibl. Max. PP., vol. v., ρ. 706, &ec.

Photius (9th century). Bibliotheca. Fol. Rothomagi, 1653.

Pinn, Lewis Ellis du (17th and 18th centuries). Nouvelle Bib-
liothéque des auteurs Ecclesiastiques ; translated by William
Wotton. 6vols., fol. Lond., 1692—1699.

Piusiadenus, Joannes (15th century). De differentiis inter
Grecos et Latinos; in Allatius Leo’s Grecia Orthodoxa.
Quoted by Waterland from Combefis’ Auctarium, p. 297.

Prayer-Book, various editions.

Primer of John, Bishop of Rochester. ὅνο. Lond., 1539.

— of Cardinal Pole. 1555.

Prosper Aquitanensis (5th century). Epistola ad Augustinum,
in Augustine’s works, vol. ii., p. 825.

Quesnel, Pasquier (17th and 18th centuries). Dissertationes,
in his edition of Leo, vol. ii., p. 399, &c.

Observationes in breviarium chori monasterii

Montis Casini; in his edition of the Pcenitentiale of Theo-

dorus. 4to. Paris, 1676.

Ratherius Veronensis (10th century). Synodica Epistola; in
Harduin’s Councils, vol. vi., p. 787, &e.

Ratram, or Bertram, of Corbey (9th century). Contra opposita
Grecorum ; in d’Achery’s Spicilegium, vol. i., p. 63, &c.

Regino Prumensis (9th and 10th centuries). De Ecclesiasticis
Disciplinis et Religione Christiana. S8vo., Paris, 1671.

Rembertus (9th century). Vita Anscharii; in Lambecius’ Orig.
Hamburg,, p. 167, Ke.

Renaudot, Eusebius (18th century). Liturgiarum Orientalium
Collectio. 2vols., 4to. Paris, 1715, 1716.

Ricaut, Paul (17th century). ‘The Present State of the Greek
and Armenian Churches. 8vo. Lond., 1679.

Riculphus (9th century). Constitutiones ; in Harduin’s Councils,
vol. vi., p. 415.

Routh, Martin Joseph (19th century). Scriptorum Ecclesiasti-
corum Opuscula. 2 vols., 8vo. Oxon., 1840.

———_——— Reliquie Sacre. 5 vols., 8vo. Oxon., 1846.

Ruelius, Johan Ludwig (17th century). Concilia illustrata.
4. vols., 4to. Norib., 1675.

Ruffinus (4th century). Commentarius in Symbolum Apostolo-
rum; in Heurtley’s De Fide et Symbolo, p. 101, &e.

Sandius, Christophorus (17th century). Nucleus Historia Eccle-
siastice. 4to. Colon., 1676.

276 INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS.

Serarius, Nicolas (16th century). Opuscula Theologica. 2 vols.,
fol. Mogunt., 1610.

Simon Tornacensis (13th century). Expositio Symboli; quoted
in Oudin’s Commentary, vol. iii., p. 30.

Sirmond, James (16th and 17th centuries). Opera varia. 3 vols.
fol. Paris, 1696.

Smith, Thomas (17th century). Catalogus Librorum MSS.
Bibliothecze Cottoniane. Fol. Oxon., 1696.

— —— An Account of the Greek Church. 8vo. Lond.,
1680.

Spelman, Sir Henry (17th century). Concilia, Decreta, Leges,
Constitutiones, in Re Ecclesiarum Orbis Britannici. Vol. ii.,
fol. Lond., 1664.

Spondanus, Henry (17th century). Annales Ecclesiastici, ex
xii. tomis Czes. Baronii in epitomen redacti. Fol. Mogunt.,
1623.

Suicer, John Caspar (17th century). Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus
6 Patribus Grecis. 2 vols., fol. Amstelod., 1672.

Sylvester Sguropulos (15th century). Historia Concilii Floren-
tini. Fol. Hage Comitis, 1660.

Tatianus (2nd century). Oratio adversus Greecos; in the same
volume with Justin Martyr.

Taylor, Jeremy, (17th century). Works. 10 vols., 8vo. Lond.,
1861.

Tentzelius, Ernestus (17th century). Exercitationes Selecte.
2 vols., 4to. Lips., 1692.

Judicia eruditorum de Symbolo Athana-
siano studiose collecta. Gotha, 1687.

Tertullianus (2nd century). Opera. Fol. Paris, 1695.

Textus Roffensis, Ernulphi episcopi ut vulgo fertur. 8vo. Oxon.,
1720.

Theodulphus Aurelianensis (9th century). De Spiritu Sancto;
in Sirmond’s Opera Varia. Vol. ii., p. 695, &e.

Tillemont, Lewis Seb. Le Nau de (17th century). Mémoires
pour servir ἃ histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siécles.
10 vols., fol. Brux., 1732.

Usher, James (17th century). Historia dogmatica. 4to. Lond.,
1690.

De Symbolo. 4to. Iond., 1647.

De Greca LXX. Interpretum editione Syntagma.

4to. Lond., 1655.

Letters. Fol. Lond., 1686.

Vincentius Lirinensis (5th century). Adversus prophanas Here-
sewm Novationes libellus. Syvo. Colon., 1600.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND EDITIONS. 277

Vossius, Gerard John (17th century). Opera. 6 vols., fol.
Amstelod., 1701.

Wall, William (18th century). History of Infant Baptism.
4 vols., 8vo. Oxford, 1844.

Wallis, John (17th century). An Explication and Vindication
of the Athanasian Creed. 4to. lLond., 1691.

Wanley, Humphrey (18th century). Librorum Vett. Septen-
trionalium Catalogus. Fol. Oxon., 1705; being vol. iii. of
Hickes’ Thesaurus.

Wharton, Henry (17th century). Auctarium Historie Dogmaticx
Jacobi Usseri. 4to. Lond., 1689; at the end of Usher’s His-
toria Dogmatica.

Appendix ad Historiam Literariam Gul. Cave. Fol.
Lond., 1689; at the end of vol. i. of Cave’s Historia Literaria.

Wotton, William (18th century). Linguarum vett. Septentriona-
lium Thesauri, auctore G. Hickesio, conspectus brevis. 8vo.
Lond., 1708.

Zialowski: see Gundling.

AN INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS.

AMBROSIAN I., Athanasian Creed, pp. 72, 120, 176, &c., 215.
Ambrosian IT., Anonymous Comments on the Creed, 64.
Ambrosian III., Fortunatus’ Comment, 15, 43, 249—266.

Baiffius, Greek Copy of the Creed, 102, 106.

Balliol, Oxon., Bruno’s Comment, 51.

Basil, Bruno’s and Hampole’s Comment, 54.

Bennet, Camb. (N. X.), Athanasian Creed, 76, 178, 184.
Bennet (I. 1), Wickliff’s Comment, 61.

Bennet (K. 10), Athanasian Creed, 79.

Bennet (N. O. V.), Athanasian Creed, 77, 86.

Bennet (N. 15), Gregory’s Psalter, 67.

Bodleian (E. 6, 11), Neckham’s Comment, 55.

Bodleian (E. 7, 8), Neckham’s Comment, 53.

Bodleian (Junius 25), Fortunatus’ Comment, 45, 248—266.
Bodleian (Laud, E. 71), Bruno’s Comment, 50.

Bodleian (Laud, H. 61), Bruno’s Comment, 50.

Bodleian (1205), Athanasian Creed, 81.

Bryling, Greek Copy of the Creed, 102, 215.

C.C.C.C., see Bennet.

Cambridge, Athanasian Creed, 79, 123.

Cassinensis, Athanasian Creed, 80.

Colbert I., Athanasian Creed, 71, 74, 148, 184—190.

Colbert II., Athanasian Creed, 77.

Constantinopolitan, Greek copy of the Creed, 102, 106.

Cotton I., Athanasian Creed in Athelstan’s Psalter, 70, 73, 86,
109

Cotton II., (Vitell., E. 18), Athanasian Creed, 78.
Cotton III., (Vespasian, A.), Athanasian Creed, 60, 70, 79.
Cotton IV., (Nero, C. 4), Gallican Version, 94.

Dionysian, see Baiffius.

Emanuel, Camb., Wickliff’s Bible, 58.

Felckman’s Greek copy of the Creed, 101.

Friars Minors, Latino-Gallican Creed, quoted by Montfaucon, 80,
81.

Germain de Prez, Bruno’s Comment, 51, 52.
Germains’, St., Athanasian Creed, 75, 177, &c.
Gotha, Bruno’s with Hampole’s Comment, 54.

AN INDEX OF MANUSCRIPTS. 279

Harleian I., Athanasian Creed, 78, 86.
Harleian 11., Athanasian Creed, 80.
Harleian III., Bruno’s Comment, 51.
Harleian IV., Triple Psalter, 89.
Hilarian, Athanasian Creed, 82.

James’, St., I., Hampole’s Comment, 61.
James’, St., II., Athanasian Creed, 77, 94, 124.
James’, St., 1Π1., Athanasian Creed, 80.

John’s, St., Camb., I., Triple Psalter, 80, 89.
John’s, St., Camb., II., Wickliff’s Comment, 57.
John’s, St., Oxon., Bruno’s Comment, 50.

Lambeth, Athanasian Creed, 78, 86, 94.
Leipsic, Bruno’s with Hampole’s Comment, 54.

Magd., Camb., I., Wickliff’s New Testament, 59.
Magd., Camb., Il., Athanasian Creed, 96.

Magd., Oxon., Hampole’s Comment, δῦ.

Merton, Oxon., Bruno’s Comment, 50.

Norfolk I., Athanasian Creed, 78.
Norfolk II., Athanasian Creed, 80.
Norfolk ITI., Athanasian Creed, 80, 94.
Norfolk 1V., English Gospels, 58.

Palatine, Greek copy of the Creed, 101, 107.
Paris I., Athanasian Creed, 75.

Paris II., Greek copy of the Creed, 102.
Patrick Young, Greek copy of the Creed, 103.

Sarum, Saxon Version of the Creed, 95.
Sydney, Camb., Hampole’s Comment on the Psalms, English, 62.

Thuanus, Athanasian Creed, 81.

Tréves, Athanasian Creed, 71, 148.

Trin. Coll., Camb., I., Athanasian Creed, 93.

Trin. Coll., Camb., 11., Bruno’s Comment, 50, 52, 89, 93.

Trin. Coll., Camb., III. Hampole’s Comment on the Psalms, 52.
Trin. Coll., Camb., IV., Rhythmus Anglicus, 38.

Trin. Coll., Camb., V., Wickliff’s Comment, 61.

Usher I., Athanasian Creed, 67.
Usher 11., Book of Hymns, 103,

Vienna I., Athanasian Creed, 75, 117, 119.
Vienna 11., Greek Creed, 99.

Vienna III., Greek Creed, 100.

Vienna IV., German Version, 94, 116.

Wurtzburgh, Bruno’s Comment, 49, 86.

York, Bruno’s Comment, 51, 52.

AN INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.

ABELARDUS, 52, 65, 212, 220.

Abbo, 31, 96, 117, 219.

Adalbertus, 30.

Adrian I., 26, 87, 117, 119.

AMneas Parisiensis, 7, 29, 98

Agobardus, 27.

Aleuinus, 252, 253.

Alexander Alensis, 35, 54, 292.

Alexander IV., 121.

Alexander Natalis, 16, 67, 114.

Allatius Leo, 8, 34, 135.

Alstedius, 114.

Ambrose, 104, 142,
154, 181, 185, 214.

Ambrose, Pseudo, 266.

Amerbachius, 92.

Anastasius I., 16, 81, 170.

Anastasius II., 146.

Anastasius of Antioch, 81.

Anscharius, 27, 116, 117.

Antelmius, 14, 33, 71, 82, 149,
158, 162, 163, 164.

Antonius, Nicol., 64.

Δ ΘΟΙ ΠΒΒΤΙΒηΞ; 225, 226, 245,

61

151, 153,

Aquinas, 37, 122, 163.

Arians, 210, 211, 218, 224, 225,
235, 239, 244, 246, 254.

Arnoldus, 33.

Ashwell, 8.

Athanasius, 32, 151, 232.

Athanasius of Spire, 10, 170.

Athelard, 118.

Athenagoras, 194.

Augustine, 20, 54, 84, 142—
145, 147, 154, 155, 160, 164,
168, 173, 177191, 214, 249,
256, 258, 260, 264, 265.

Augustine of Canterbury, 87.

Aurelius, 161.

Avitus Viennensis, 111, 159,
171.

. Bacchiarius, τ 182.

Bacon, Roger, 8

Baiffius, 102, 106, 212, 217.

Baldensal, 39,

Bale, 60.

Baluzius, 2, 27.

Baronius, 9, 14, 113, 126.

Baxter, 239.

Beleth, 34.

Benedict, 122.

Berno Augiensis, 89.

Beveridge, 12.

Binghan, 16, 24.

Blunt, 192.

Bona, 7, 38, 81, 86—88, 112,
119, 121, 125, 129.

Boniface, 25, 81, 170.

Bruno, 47, 48, 54, 56, 182, 188,
249, 252—257.

Brunswick, Abbot of, 28.

Bryling, Nicol., 102, 105, 212,
214, 223, 229.

Burton, 192, 196, 199.

Cabasutius, 13, 24.

Ceesarius, 159, 171, 249.

Calamy, 236, 237, 238.

Caleca, Manuel, 35, 97, 99, 100,
15; 120. ΠΣ

Calvin, 127, 238.

Calvisius, 113.

Cantilupe, Walter de, 36.

Carranza, 64,

Carrillus, 64.

Carthusians, 81.

Cassian, 157,

Cave, 11, 17.

AN INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.

281

eee

Caxton, 60.

Cazanovius, 127.

Charles the Great, 26, 75, 109,
117, 119, 122.

Chillingworth, 234.

Clarke, 17, 179.

Claudianus, 147.

Clemens Alex., 197, 198, 204.

Clemens Romanus, 192.

Cochleus, 48, 49.

Collier, 60.

Combefis, 39, 40, 97, 126, 143,
171

Comber, 12, 67.
Covel, 134.
Coverdale, 87.
Councils, viz.—
Autun, A.D. 670. 13, 21, 46,
109, 110.

Chalcedon, a.p. 451. 144,
145, 148, 237, 247.

Ephesus, a.D. 431. 156,
236, 237.

Exeter, A.D. 1287. 38.

Florence, 4.D. 1439. 136.

Frankfort, A.D. 794. 25,
116.
Gentilly, Δ.0. 7607. 97.
Spain, a.p. 447. 7.
Toledo, IlI., 4.p. 589. 112.
Toledo, IV., a.D. 633. 111,
112, 113.

Turribius, A.D. 447. 145.

Coxe, 50, 51, 55.

Creeds, viz.—
Apostolic, passim.
Athanasian, passim.
Aquileian, 189, 227.
Of Constantinople, passim.
Of Damasus, 254, 256, 259.
Of Epiphanius, 140, 152.
Of Pelagius, 179, 185, 187,

189.

Romanum Vetus, 189, 241.

Cudworth, 10.

Cyparissiota, 40, 104.

Cyprian, 193.

Cyril of Alexandria, 156.

Cyril of Jerusalem, 236, 242.

Cyril, missionary in Servia,130.

Damasus, 85, 154, 254, 256, 259.

Danhawerus, 240.
Denebertus, 118.
Dionysius Alex., 196, 201, 204.
Dionysius of Milan, 104.
Dionysius Rom., 194, 201.
Dionysius of Sienna, 106.
Dodwell, 112.

Douza, 125.

Dudithius, 11.

Dupin, 13, 24.

Duranto, 38.

Durell, 88.

Epiphanius, 140, 152, 183.
Ethelbald, 68.

Euphronius, 46.

Eusebius, 39, 104, 170.
Eutyches, 144—147, 245, 247.

Fabricius, 9, 15, 24, 34, 105,
108

Faustinus, 142, 179, 181, 214.
Felckmann, 83, 101, 107, 212.
Felix III., 145.

Feller, 55.

Flavian, 145, 147.

Fortunatus, 15, 43, 44, 110,
158, 170, 176, 182, 184, 186,
188, 222, 248—266.

Frassenius, 121.

Fulgentius, 146, 214, 252, 253.

Gaudentius, 20.
Gavantus, 114.
Genebrard, 102, 103, 105, 106,
107, 123, 127, 181, 212, 217.
Gennadius, 54, 120, 163, 187,
189, 191, 228.

Gorrham, 57.

Grabe, 73.

Gregory Beeticus, 256.

Gregory I., 67, 87, 249.

Gregory IX., legates of, 6, 11,
36, 66, 222.

Gregory Nazianzen, 20, 142,
147, 152, 153, 177.

Gregory Nyssen, 151.

Gregory of Tours, 46, 86, 112,
122.

Gualdo, 32.

282 ΑΝ

Gundling, 11, 101, 103, 106,
“126:

Hampole, 54, 61.

Harduin, 21, 24, 27, 30, 36,
136, 151.

Harris, 128, 129.

Hatto, 27, 116, 125.

Heath, 87.

Heidegger, 11.

Helvicus, 114.

Hermantius, 24.

Heurtley, 152, 241, 259.

Hickes, 68, 96, 134.

Higden, 58.

Hilary of Arles, 163—170.

Hilary of Poictiers, 82, 167, 170.

Hildegarde, 52.

Hilsey, 212,

Hincemar, 7, 22, 28, 47, 91, 93, |

109, 163, 222.
Hippolytus, 195, 200, 204, 205.
Hody, 84, 86—89, 122.
Honoratus of Arles, 165.
Honorees of Marseilles, 163,
166.

Honorius, 32.

Hormisdas, 146.

Hugo de §. Victor, 34.
Hulsemannus, 240.

Hyg raaanus, Nicol., 34, 98, 99,

Ignatius, 192, 198, 204.
Ignatius, Pseudo, 183, 191.

Irenzus, 193, 197, 198, 200,
201, 203, 205.
Isidorus Hispalensis, 9, 20,

253, 256, 261, 265.
Isidorus Pelusiota, 266.
Ivo Carnotensis, 249.

Januensis Johannes, 37, 55, 57,

Jerome, 84—88, 151, 154, 256,
259, 265.

John of Antioch, 156.

John IL, 146.

Julianus, 100.

Julius, 39, 100, 140.

Justin, 193, 194, 196, 201, 203.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.

Justinian, 146.

Kirkham, 37.
Kromayer, 240.

Labbe, 10, 24, 107, 113, 217.

Lambecius, 29, 32, 38, 79, 94,
117, 179, 185.

Langbaine, 57.

Le Cointe, 24.

Le Lande, 24.

Le Long, 48, 49, 58, 85, 89,
ie

Leo I., 10, 145, 151, 157.

Leo IIL, 27, 122.

Leodegarius, 21, 23.

Leporius, 156, 160, 161.

Lepusculus, 106.

Le Quien, 15, 27, 67, 111, 123,
148, 149, 150, 151, 159, 222,
236, 237.

L’Estrange, 8, 67.

Liberius, 40, 140.

Livius, 163.

Ludolphus, Job, 127, 136, 246.

Ludolphus Saxo, 38, 232.

Lupus, 46.

Luther, 232, 238.

Lyra, 57.

Mabillon, 75, 86, 89, 112, 115,
11

Macedonians, 245.

Marcus Ephesius, 136.

Martene, 134.

Martianay, 85, 86.

Meletius, 125.

Melito, 205.

Methodius, 205, 266.

Methodius, a Servian mission-

ary, 130.

Metrophanes, 133.

Monothelites, 247.

Montfaucon, 14, 20, 24, 51, 67,
71, 73, 74, 75, 77, 80, 82, 83,
87, 93, 94, 97, 102, 103, 114,
149, 160, 217.

Muratori, 15, 21, 24, 48, 44,

64, 65, 67, 72, 115, 126, 160,

182, 248—266.

Neander, 105, 106.

AN INDEX OF

AUTHORITIES. 283

Neckham, 53.

Nesselius, 100.

Nestorius, 149, &c., 245, 247.
Nichols, 237.

Nisselius, 108.

Nithardus, 93.

Novatian, 196.

Olivet, Monks of Mt., 27, 119,
122.
Origen, 80, 195, 199, 200, 202

ey

Orosius, 229.

Osma, 63.

Otfridus, 94, 116.

Otho, 33, 38.

Oudin, 18, 23, 24, 29, 53, 57,
58, 115, 159.

Pagi, 13, 24, 80, 109, 110.
Papebrochius, 21.
Pappus, 247.

Pareus, 46.
Patripassians, 210.
Paululus, 34

Pearson, 9, 228.
Pelagius 1., 146.
Pelagius, Monk, 154.
Petavius, 6, 148, 151.
Petrus de Harentals, 57.
Philastrius, 179.
Photinians, 225, 244.
Photius, 266.

Pius V., 86, 87.
Planudes, 100.
Plusiadenus, 40.

Pole, Cardinal, 96, 212.
Primers, 208, 212.
Prosper, 164.

Psalters, 83, &c.

Quesnel, 10, 24, 80, 82, 109,
110, 114, 163.

Ratherius, 30, 118, 120.
Ratram, 7, 29, 98.
Ravennius, 163.

Regino, 24.

Rembertus, 29, 117.
Renaudot, 126, 129,246.
Ricaut, 136, 246.

Riculphus, 30.

Rotharius, 120.

Routh, 157, 236.

Ruelius, 9.

Ruffinus, 249, 256, 259, 260,
261, 263, 266.

Sabellians, 210, 233, 245, 253.

Sandius, 10

Serrarius, 106, 247.

Simon, 53.

Sirmondus, 23, 24, 26, 28, 158,
159:

Smith, 73, 78, 79, 126.

Spelman, 36, 37, 38.

Spondanus, 126.

Stephens, 102, 105, 106, 212.

Strabo, 86.

Suicer, 136.

Sylvester Sguropulos, 136.

Tatian, 203.

Taylor, 8, 240.

Tentzel, 8, 18, 24, 29, 34, 54,
δ Ne 83, 94, 108, 129, 133,
24

Tertullian, 194, 199, 200—204,

Textus Roffensis, 118.

Thecaras, 132.

Theodoret, 154.

Theodulphus, 12, 26, 158.

Theophilus, 193.

Tillemont, 14, 24, 67,
114.

Tonstall, 87.

Trevisa, 58, 60.

71,

Ullerston, 56.

Usher, 7, 49, 58, 67—73, 92,
103, 104, 107, 129, 132, 218,
241.

Vigilius, Pope, 112.

Vigilius Tapsensis, 10, 12, 17,
82, 148, 149, 170.

Vincentius Lirinensis, 14, 145,
147, 157, 162, 164, 170, 171,
173, 177, 179, 187, 189.

Voss, 5, 25, 83, 125, 127.

-

284 AN INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.

Wall, 154, 155. Willehad, 117, 119.
Wallis, 239, Wotton, 78, 95.
Warley, 50, 69, 77—79, 98, 94,

124. Young, 103.
When. 58, 61, 92—94.
Wicliff, 57, 96, 223, Zialowski, 11.

Wilkins, 95,

Printed by James Parker and Co., Crofon-pard, Oxford.

A SELECTION FROM
THE PUBLICATIONS OF
MESSRS. JAS. PARKER AND 00.

---- --Φ--ς-ς.--

NEW BOOKS.

Studia Sacra:

COMMENTARIES ON THE INTRODUCTORY VERSES
of St. John’s Gospel, and on a portion of St. Paul’s Epistle to
the Romans; with other Theological Papers by the late Rev.
JOHN KEBLE, M.A. S8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.

Occasional Papers and Reviews,

On Sir Welter Scott, Poetry, and Sacred Poetry, Bishop War-
burton, Rev. John Miller, Exeter Synod, Judicial Committee
of Privy Council, Parochial Work, the Lord’s Supper, Solo-
mon, the Jewish Nation. By the late Rev. Joun KEBLE,
Author of “The Christian Year.” 532 pp., with two Fac-
similes from Common-place Book, Demy 8vo., cloth extra, 12s.
“They are prefaced by two letters of deep interest from Dr. NewMAN

and Dr. Pusry. There is something extremely touching in the reunion,

as it were, of the three old friends and fellow-labourers,”’— Guardian.
The First Prayer-book of Edward VI.

Compared with the Successive Revisions of the Book of Com-
mon Prayer. Together with a Concordance an4 Index to the
Rubrics in the several Editions. Crown 8vo, cloth, 12s.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE
Successive Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer. Crown
8vo., pp- Xxxii., 532, cloth, 12s.

The History of Confirmation.
By Wit11am Jackson, M.A., Queen’s College, Oxford ; Vicar
of Heathfield, Sussex. Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s,
The Awaking Soul,

As sketched in the 130th Psalm. Addresses delivered. at St.
Peter’s, E:ton-square, oa the Tuesdays in Leut, 1877, by
E. R. Wirperrorce, M.A., Vievr of Seaforth, Liverpool ; and
Sub-Almoner to the Queen. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 6d.

Stories from the Old Testament.
Witn Four Illustrations. Square crown 8vo., 4s.
Adams’s Historical Tales.

TALES ILLUSTKATING CHURCH HISTORY. ENGLAND:
Medizval Period. By the Rev. H. C. Apams, Vicar of Dry
Sandford; Author of “ Wilton of Cuthbert’s,” ‘ Schoolboy
Honour,” ἄς. With four Llustrations on Wood. Feap. 8vo.,
cloth, 5s.

--

JAMES PARKER AND CO., OXFORD AND LONDON.
(1277.5*1™M-),

bo

NEW BOOKS.

Offices of the Old Catholic Prayer-book.

A CatHoric Rirvat, published according to the Decrees of the
First Two Synods of the Old Catholics of the German Empire.
Done into English and compared with the Offices of the Roman
and Old German Rituals. By the Rev. F. EK. Warren, B.D.,
Fellow of St.John’s College, Oxford. Crown 8vo., cl., 3s. 6d.

The Founder of Norwich Cathedral.
The LIFE, LETTERS, and SERMONS of BISHOP HER-
BERT DE LOSINGA (Ὁ. cire. a.D. 1050, ὦ. 1119), the
LETTERS (as translated by the Edit: rs) being incorporated
into the LIFE, and the SERMONS being now first edited
from a MS. in the possession of the University of Cambridge,
and accompanied with an English Translation and English
Notes. By Epwarp Meyrick GounsurN, D.D., Dean of
Norwich, and Henry Symonps, M.A., Rector of Tivetshall,
and late Precentor of Norwich Cathedral. 2 vols. 8vo.,
c'oth, 24s. [ Shortly.

The Archeeology of Rome.
THE ARCHHOLOGY OF ROME. By Joun HENRY
PARKER, C.B.
9. Tur TomBS IN AND NEAR Rome, with the Columbaria and
the Painted Tombs on the Via Latina, with 24 Plates.
10. MyrHotocy In FUNEREAL SCULPTURE, and Karly Chris-
tian Sculpture, with Sixteen Plates,
The above two Parts in one Vol. Medium 8vo.,, el., 15s.
12, THE CATACOMBS, OR ANCIENT CEMETERIES OF ROME, with
Twenty-four Plates and Plans. Medium 8vo., cloth, 15s.

The Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrifice and
Participation of the Holy Eucharist.
By Grorce Trevor, M.A., D.D., Canon of York; Rector of
Beeford. Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Crown
8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.

The Annals of England:

ΑΝ Epitome oF Enetisn History, from Contemporary Wri-
ters, the Rolls of Parliament, and other Public Records.
A Liprary Eprrion, revised and enlarged, with additional
Woodcuts. S8vo., cloth, 12s.

THE SCHOOL EDITION of THE ANNALS of ENGLAND.
In Five Half-crown Parts. 1. Britons, Romans, Saxons, Nor-
mans. 2. The Plantagenets. 3. The Tudors. 4. The Stuarts.
5. The Restoration, to the Death of Queen Anne. Fcap.
8vo., cloth.

Theyexilevfirom Paradise:

Translated by the Author of the “Life of S. Teresa.” Feap.,

cloth, 1s. 6d. ᾿

JAMES PARKER AND CO.

SCRIPTURE COMMENTARIES, &e. 3

Daniel the Prophet.

Nine Lectures delivered in the Divinity School, Oxford. With
a Short Preface in Answer to Dr. Rowland Williams. By
E. B. Pusry, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon
of Christ Church. Seventh Thousand. 8vo., 10s. 6d.

The Minor Prophets;
With a Commentary Explanatory and Practical, and Introdue-«
tions to the Several Books. By the Rev. E. B. Pusry, D.D.,
ἄς. 4to., cloth, price £1 11s. 6d.

The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah,

According to the Jewish Interpreters. I. Texts edited from
Printed Books, and MSS., by Ap. NrevpavrEr. Price 18s.
IT. Translations by S. R. Driver and Ap. NeusavER. With
au Introduction to the Translations by the Rev. E. B. Pusry,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. Post 8vo., cloth, 12s.

The Prophecies of Isaiah.

Their Authenticity and Messianic Interpretation Vindicated, in
a Course of Sermons preached before the University of Oxford.
By the Very Rev. RK. Payne Smita, D.D., Dean of Can-
terbury. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.

A Plain Commentary on the Book of Psalms

(Prayer-book Version), chiefly grounded on the Fathers. For
the Use of Families. 2 vols., Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.

The Psalter and the Gospel.

The Life, Sufferings, and Triumph of our Blessed Lord, revealed
in the Book of Psalms. F cap. 8vo., cloth, 2s.

A Summary of the Evidences for the Bible.

By the Rev. T. S. AckLanD, M.A., late Fellow of Clare Hall,
Cambridge; Incumbent of Pollington cum Balne, Yorkshire.
24mo., cloth, 3s.

Godet’s Biblical Studies

ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. Edited by the Hon. and
Rey. W. H. Lyrretroy, Rector of Hagley, and Honorary
Canon of Worcester. Feap. 8vo. cloth, price 6s.

OXFORD, AND 377, STRAND, LONDON.

4 SCRIPTURE COMMENTARIES, &c.

Catena Aurea.

A Commentary on the Four Gospels, collected out of the Works
of the Fathers by 5. THomas Aquinas. Uniform with the

Library of the Fathers. A Re-issue, complete in 6 vols.,
cloth, £2 2s.

A Plain Commentary on the Four Holy
Gospels,
Intended chiefly for Devotional Reading. By the Very Rev.

J. W. Βυπαον, B.D., Dean of Chichester. New Edition.
4 vols., Fcap. 8vo., limp cloth, £1 1s.

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel
according to S. Mark

Vindicated against Recent Critical Objectors and Established,
by the Very Rev. J. W. Bureon, B.D., Dean of Chichester.
With Facsimiles of Codex καὶ and Codex L. 8vo., cloth, 12s.

The Gospels from a Rabbinical Point
of View,

Shewing the perfect Harmony of the Four Evangelists on the
subject of our Lord’s Last Supper, and the Bearing of the
Laws and Customs of the Jews at the time of our Lord’s
coming on the Language of the Gospels. By the Rev. G.
Wixpon Pieritz, M.A. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s.

Christianity as Taught by 5. Paul.

By Wit11am J. Irons, D.D., of Queen’s College, Oxford; Pre-
bendary of S. Paul’s; being the BAMPTON LECTURES for
the Year 1870, with an Appendix of the Continuous SENSE
of S. Paul’s Epistles; with Notes and Metalegomena, 8vo.,
with Map, Second Edition, with New Preface, cloth, 9s.

S. Paul’s Epistles to the Ephesians and
Philippians.

A Practical and Exegetical Commentary. Edited by the late
Rev. Henry NEWLAND. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.

TAMES PARKER AND CO,

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, ὅο. 5

A History of the Church,

From the Edict of Milan, a.D. 313, to the Council of Chalcedon,
A.D. 451. By WittiamM Brieut, D.D., Regius Professor of
Ecclesiastical History, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
Second Edition. Post 8vo., 10s. 6d.

The Age of the Martyrs;

Or, The First Three Centuries of the Work of the Church
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By the late Jonny
Davip JENKINS, B.D., Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford;
Canon of Pieter Maritzburg. Cr. 8vo., cl., reduced to 3s. 6d.

The Councils of the Church,

From the Council of Jerusalem, a.p. 51, to the Council of
Constantinople, a.D. 381; chiefly as to their Constitution,
but also as to their Objects and History. By E. B. Pussy,
D.D. 8vo., cloth, 6s.

The Ecclesiastical History of the First
Three Centuries,

From the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ to the year 313. By the
late Rev. Dr. Burton. Fourth Edition. 8vo., cloth, 12s.

A Brief History of the Christian Church,

From the First Century to the Reformation. By the Rev.
J.S. BARTLETT. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.

Manual of Ecclesiastical History,

From the First to the Twelfth Century inclusive. By the
Rey. E. 5. Frountkens, M.A. 8vo., cloth, 6s.

A History of the English Church,

From its Foundation to the Reign of Queen Mary. By Mary
CHARLOTTE StTapLEy. Third Edition, revised, with a Re-
commendatory Notice by ἘᾺΝ Hoox. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the
English Nation.

A New Translation by the Rev. L. Grotey, M.A., Chaplain of
St. Nicholas’, Salisbury. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.

Awnnan Tr Δα σα 2 ih mmm AATYS! TRraATIRAKAT

6 THE PRAYER-BOOK.

The Principles of Divine Service ;

Or, An Inquiry concerning the True Manner of Understand-
ing and Using the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer,
and for the Administration of the Holy Communion in the
English Church. By the late Ven. Poinip FREEMAN, M.A.,
Archdeacon of Exeter, &c. 2 vols. 8vo., cloth, 16s.

A History of the Book of Common Prayer,

And other Authorized Books, from the Reformation; with an
Account of the State of Religion in England from 1640
to 1660. By the Rev. THomas Latupuny, M.A. Secoud
Edition, with an Index. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.

Catechetical Lessons on the Book of Common Prayer.

Illustrating the Prayer-book, from its Title-page to the end of
the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels. Designed to aid tie
Clergy in Public Catechising. By the Rev. Dr. Francts
HesseEy, Incumbent of St. Barnabas, Kensington, Fcap. 8vo.,
cloth, 6s.

A Short Explanation of the Nicene Creed,
For the Use of Persons beginning the Study of Theology. By
the late A. P. Forzes, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin, Second
Edition, Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.

An Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles.
By the late A. P. Forzes, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. With an
Epistle Dedicatory to the Rey. E. B. Pusgy, D.D. Secoid
Edition, in one vol., Post 8vo., 12s.

Addresses to the Candidates for Ordination on the
Questions in the Ordination Service.

By the late SamuEL WILBERFORCE, LoRD BIsHoP oF WIN-
CHESTER. Fifth Thousand. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.

A Commentary on the Epistles and Gospels in the
Book of Common Prayer.

Extracted from Writings of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic
Church, anterior to the Division of the East and West. With
an Introductory Notice by the DEAN oF St. Pavu’s. 2 vols.,
Crown 8vo., cloth, 15s.

Sunday-School Exercises,

Collected and Revised from Manuscripts of Burghelere Schor]-
children, unde the teaching of the Rev. W. B. Barter, lat:
Rector of Highclere and Burghclere ; Edited by his Sou-in-law,
the BrsHop oF St. ANDREW’s. Second Edition, Crown 8vo.,
cloth, 5s.

DOCTRINAL THEOLOGY. i.

On Eucharistical Adoration.
With Considerations suggested by a Pastoral Letter on the
Doctrine of the Most Holy Eucharist. By the late Rey.
Joun ΚΈΒΙΕ, M.A., Vicar of Hursley. 24mo., sewed, 2s.

The Administration of the Holy Spirit

In THE Bopy or Curist. The Bampton Lectures for 1868.
By the Right Rev. the Lorp BisHor oF SanisBury. Second
Edition. Crown 8vo., 7s. 6d.

Sayings ascribed to our Lord
By the Fathers and other Primitive Writers, and Incidents in
His Life narrated by them, otherwise than found in Scrip-
ture. By Jon THroporeE Dopp, B.A., late Junior Student
of Christ Church. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s.

The Pastoral Rule of
S. Gregory.

Sancti Gregorii Pape Regule Pas-
toralis Liber, ad JoHANNEM, Epis-
copum Civitatis Ravenne. With
a English Translation. By the

ev. H. R. Bramuey, M.A., Fel- Ξ a
low of Magdalen College, Oxford. Th . REE ap pret alae
Feap. 8vo., cloth, 6s. 16 Three Epistles (ad_ Nestorium,

MhelGanons of thé Church ii., 111., et ad Joan Antioch). A Re-

The Definitions of the Catholic Faith ees pers wa aed ΘῈΣ ΝΕ: ἢ
and Canons of Discipline of the ait ib ΠΝ E “Ἔ us MA. eee
First Four General Councils of the in ee Ἧς ἽΕΙ OBEN, easy UN Ors
Universal Church. In Greek and ete ee
English. Feap. 8yo., cloth, 28. 6d.

The English Canons.
The Constitutions and Canons Eccle-
siastical of the Church of England,
referred to their Original Sources,

The Athanasian Creed.

A Critical History of the Athanasian
Creed, by the θυ. ΠΑΝ ει, WATER-
LAND, D.D. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, is.

St. Cyril, Archbishop of

8. Aurelius Augustinus,
Episcopus ΗΙΡΡΟΝΕΝΒΙΒ,
De Catechizandis Rudibus, de Fide
Rerum que non videntur, de Uti-
litate Credendi. In Usum Junio-

and Illustrated with Explanatory
Notes, by MackeEnzin Εἰ. C. Wat-
cort, B.D., F.S.A., Praecentor and
Prebendary of Chichester. Fceap.
8vo., cloth, 4s.

rum. Edidit C. Marriort, 8.T.B.,
olim Coll. Oriel. Socius. A New
Edition, Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.

Cur Deus Homo,

Or Why God was made Man; by
Sr. ANSELM. Translated into Eng-
lish, with an Introduction, &c.
Feap. 8vo., 2s. 6d.

Latin and English Edition nearly
ready.

The Book of Ratramn

The Priest and Monk of Corbey,
commonly called Bertram, ou

Vineentius Lirinensis
For the Antiquity and Universality
of the Catholic Faith against the
Profane Novelties of all Heretics.
Latin and English. New Edition,
Feap. 8vo. [Nearly ready,
Translation only, 18mo., ls. 6d.

De Fide et Symbolo: |
Documenta queedam nec non Ali-

quorum 585. Patrum Tractatus.
Edidit Carotus A. Herurriey,
S.T.P., Dom. Margarete Pre-
lector, et Audis Christi Canonicus.
Feap. 8vo., cloth, 4s. 6d.

OXFORD, AND 277%,

the Body and Blood of the Lord,
(Latin and English.) To which
is added AN APPENDIX, contain-
ing the Saxon Homily of Ailfric.
Feap. 8vo. [Nearly ready.

STRAND, LONDON.

8 THE LIBRARY OF THE FATHERS.

NEW AND CHEAPER ISSUE
OF

The Pibrary of the Fathers

OF THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH, ANTERIOR TO THE DIVISION
OF THE EAST AND WEST.
Translated by Members of the English Church.
Already Issued.
St. Athanasius against the Arians. 1 vol., 10s. 6d.
ΞΘ, ΘΌ ΞΤΟΥΊΘΕΙ ΠΥ ΒΙΟΙΒ 10s. 6d
Festal Epistles eats
St. Augustine’s Confessions, with Notes, 6s.
----- Sermons on the New Testament.

2 vols., lds.
eae roe Homilies on the Psalms. 6 vols., £2 2s.
ee on the Gospel and First Epistle of

St.John. 2 vols., lds.

Practical Treatises. 6s.

St. Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Gospel of St.
Matthew. 3 vols., £1 Ils.
—_———_— Homilies on the Gospel of St.John.

2 vols., 14s.

Homilies on the Acts of the Apo-

stles. 2 vols., 12s.

to the People of Antioch. 75. 6d.

—_——- Homilies on St. Paul’s Epistle to
the Romans. 1 vol., 6s.

The Hebrews. One Vol., cloth, 7s.

St. Cyprian’s Treatises and Epistles, with the
Treatises of St. Pacian. 10s.

St. Cyril (Bishop of Jerusalem), Catechetical Lectures
on the Creed and Sacraments. 75.

St. Cyril (Archbishop of Alexandria), Commentary upon
the Gospel of St. John. Vol. I. 8s.

St. Ephrem’s Rhythms on the Nativity, and on
Faith. 85. 6d. ;

St. Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job.
4 vols., £1 11s. 6d.

St. Ireneeus, the Works of. 8s.

St. Justin the Martyr. Works now extant. 6s.

Tertullian’s Apologetical and Practical Treatises. 95.

The following may still be had in the original bindings : ---
St. Chrysostom’s Homilies on St. Paul’s Epistles to
the Corinthians. 2 vols., 18s.
Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

1 vol., 7s. 6d.

JAMES PARKER AND CO,

STANDARD ENGLISH DIVINES. 9

WLhrks of the Standard Puglish Divines,
PUBLISHED IN THE LIBRARY OF ANGLO-CATHOLIC THEOLOGY,
At the following prices in Cloth.

Andrewes’ (Bp.) Complete Works. 1! vols., 8vo., £3 7s.

Tue Sermons. (Separate.) 5 vols., £1 188.

Beveridge’s (Bp.) Complete Works. 12 vols., 8vo., £4 45.

Tue Enetisu THEOLoGIcAL Works. 10 vols., £3 10s.

Bramhall’s (Abp. ) wo with Life and Letters, &c.
5 vols., 8vo., £1 1
Bull’s (Bp.) Harmony on Justification, 2 vols., 8vo., 10s.
Defence of the Nicene Creed. 2 vols., 10s.
Judgment of the Catholic Church. 5s.
Cosin’s (Bp.) Works Complete, 5 vols, 8vo., £1 10s,
Crakanthorp’s Defensio Ecclesie Anglicane. 8vo., 7s.
Frank’s Sermons. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s.
Forbes’ Considerationes Modest. 2 vols., 8vo., 12s.
Gunning’s Paschal, or Lent Fast. 8vo., 6s.
Hammond’s Practical Catechism. 8vo., ds.
Miscellaneous Theological Works, 5s.
Thirty-one Sermons. 2 Parts. 10s,

Hickes’s Two Treatises on the Christian Priesthood.
3 vols., 8vo., 188.

Johnson's (John) Theological Works. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s.
— English Canons. 2 vols. 12s.
πόνου (Abp.) Complete Works. 7 vols., (9 Parts,) 8vo.,

L’Estrange’s Alliance of Divine Offices. 8vo., 6s.
Marshall’s Penitential Discipline. 8vo., 4s.
Nicholson's (Bp.) Exposition of the Catechism. (This

volume cannot be sold separate from the complete set.)

Overall’s (Bp.) Convocation-book of 1606. 8vo., 5s.
Pearson’s (Bp.) Vindicie Epistolarum S. Ignatii.

2 vols., 8vo.,

Thorndike’s ΕΒ ἘΠῚ eel Works Complete.

6 vols., (10 Parts,) 5vo

Wilson’s (Bp.) Works Complete. with Life, by Rev.
J. KEBLE. 7 vols., (8 Parts,) 8vo., £3 3s.

L\V GWrvAD Τὰ ARTY. ohm CrmnwTn Α ἌΤΤΑ δ νυ οι

10 PARISH WORK.

The Catechist’s Manual ;

With an Introduction by the late SamuEL WILBERFORCE, LorpD
BisHop oF WINCHESTER. 5th Thousand. Cr. 8vo., limp el., 5s.

The Confirmation Class-book :

Notes for Lessons, with APPENDIX, containing Questions and
Summaries for the Use of the Candidates. By Epwarp
M. Hoitmes, LL.B., Author of the “ Catechist’s Manual.”
Feap. 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 6d.

THE QUESTIONS, separate, 4 sets, in wrapper, 15.
THE SUMMARIES, separate, 4 sets, in wrapper, 1s.

The Church’s Work in our Large Towns.
By GrorGe Huntineron, M.A., Rector of Tenby, and Domes-
tic Chaplain of the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Crawford and Bal-
carres. Second Edit., revised and enlarged. Cr. 8vo., cl. 3s. 6d.

The Church and the School:
Containing Practical Hints on the Work of a Clergyman. By
H. ΝΥ. Bexuatrrs, M.A., One of Her Majesty’s Inspectors οἱ
Schools. Cheap re-issue, Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 6d.

Notes of Seven Years’ Work in a Country Parish.

By R.F. Witson, M.A., Prebendary of Sarum, and Examining
Chaplain to the Bishop of Salisbury. F cap. 8vo., cloth, 4s.

A Manual of Pastoral Visitation,

Intended for the Use of the Clergy in their Visitation of the
Sick and Afflicted. By A Parisn Prizst. Dedicated, by
permission, to His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin. Second
Edition, Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d.; roan, 4s.

The Cure of Souls.
By the Rev. G. ARDEN, M.A., Rector of Winterborne-Came, and
Author of “Breviates from Holy Scripture,” &c. Feap.
8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.

Questions on the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels,
Throughout the Year. Edited by the Rev. T. L. Chaveuton,

Vicar of Kidderminster. For the Use of Teachers in Sunday
Schools. Fifth Edition, 18mo., cl. In two Parts, each 2s. 6u.

Pleas for the Faith.

Especially designed for the use of Missionaries at Home and
Abroad. By the Rev. W. SoMERVILLE Lacu ΞΖΥΒΜΑ, M.A.,
St. Augustine’s College, Canterbury. Fcap. 8vo., cl., 2s. 6d.

TAMES PARKER AND CO,

DEVOTIONAL WORKS. 11

MEDITATIONS FOR THE FORTY DAYS
OF LENT.
With a Prefatory Notice by the ArcuBis#op oF DuBLIN.
18mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.

DAILY STEPS TOWARDS HEAVEN;

Or, PracticaL THoveuts on the Gospen History, and espe-
cially on the Life and Teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, for
Every Day in the Year, according to the Christian Seasor 5,
with the Titles and Character of Christ, and a Harmony of
the Four Gospels. Newly printed, with antique type. For-
tieth thousand. 32mo., roan, gilt edges, 2s. 6d.; morocco, 5 .

LARGE-TYPE EDITION. Square Crown 8vo., cloth antique,
red edges, 5s.

ANNUS DOMINI.

A Prayer for each Day of the Year, founded on a Text of Holy
Scripture. By Curistina G. Rosserri. 32mo., cl., 3s. 6d.

LITURGIA DOMESTICA:
Services for every Morning and Evening in the Week. Third
Edition. 18mo., 2s. Or in two Parts, 1s. each.

EARL NELSON’S FAMILY PRAYERS.
With Responsions and Variations for the different Seasons, for
General Use. New and improved Edition, large type, cloth, 2s.

ΘῈ ΤῊῈ ἹΜΙΤΑΤΡΊΟΝ OF GHRIST,

Four Books. By THomas A ΚΈΜΡΙΒ. Small 4to., printed on
thick toned paper, with red border-lines, medizval title-pages,
ornamental initials, ἄς. Third Thousand. Cloth, 12s.

PRAYERS FOR MARRIED PERSONS.
From Various Sources, chiefly from the Ancient Liturgies. Se-
lected and Edited by CHartEes Warp, M.A., Rector of
Maulden. Second Edition, Revised. 24mo., cloth, 4s. 6d.

FOR THE LORD’S SUPPER.

DEVOTIONS BEFORE AND AFTER Hozty COMMUNION. With
Preface by J. Kepner. Sixth Edition. 32mo., cloth, 2s.

With the Office, cloth, 2s. 6d.

Drvourt Communion, from Horst. 18mo., cloth, 1s.

Orricium EvucHaristicuM. By Epwarp Laks, D.D. New
Edition. 32mo., cloth, 1s. 6d.

A SHORT AND PLAIN INSTRUCTION FOR THE BETTER UNDER-
STANDING OF THE LORD’s SUPPER. By Bisuorp WILSON.
32mo., with Rubrics, cloth, gilt edges, 2s.

32mo., limp cloth, 8d.; sewed, 6d.

24mo., limp cloth, 1s.

OXFORD, AND 377, STRAND, LONDON.

12 OXFORD EDITIONS OF DEVOTIONAL WORKS.

Oxford Evitions of Debotional Works.

Feap. 8vo., chiefly printed in Red and Black, on Toned Paper.

Andrewes’ Devotions.
DEVOTIONS. By the Right Rev.
LANCELOT ANDREWES. Trans-
lated from the Greek and Latin,
and arranged anew. Cloth, 5s.

The Imitation of Christ.

FOUR BOOKS. By Tomas A
Kempts. A new Edition, re-
vised. Cloth, 4s.

Laud’s Devotions.
THE PRIVATE DEVOTIONS of
Dr. Witu1AM Lavp, Archbishop
of Canterbury, and Martyr. An-
tique cloth, 5s.

Spinckes’ Devotions.
TRUE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
MAN’S COMPANION IN THE
CLOSET. By NATHANIEL
SprInckEs. Floriated borders,
antique cloth, 4s.

Sutton’s Meditations.

GODLY MEDITATIONS UPON
THE MOST HOLY SACRA-
MENT OF THE LORD’S SUP-
PER. By CuristopHER SuTTON,
D.D., late Prebend of Westmin-
ster. A new Edition. Antique
cloth, 5s.

Taylor’s Golden Grove.

THE GOLDENGROVE: A Choice
Manual, containing what is to
be Believed, Practised, and De-
sired or Prayed for, By BisHop
JeREMY TAyLor. Antique cloth,
3s. 6d.

|

Taylor’s Holy Living.
THE RULE AND EXERCISES

OF HOLY LIVING. By Bisuop

JEREMY TayLor. Ant, cloth, 48.

Taylor's Holy Dying.
THE RULE AND EXERCISES

OF HOLY DYING. By BisHop

JEREMY Taytor. Ant, cloth, 4s.

Wilson’s Sacra Privata.

THE PRIVATE MEDITATIONS,
DEVOTIONS, and PRAYERS
of the Right Rev. T. WrLson,
D.D., Lord Bishop of Sodor and
Man. Now first printed entire.
Cloth, 4s.

Ancient Collects.

ANCIENT COLLECTS AND
OTHER PRAYERS, Selected
for Devotional Use from va-
rious Rituals, with an Appendix
on the Collects in the Prayer-
book. By Witi1aAmM Bricut,
D.D. Fourth Edition. Antique
cloth, 5s.

Devout Communicant.

THE DEVOUT COMMUNI-
CANT, exemplified in his Be-
haviour before, at, and after the
Sacrament of the Lord’s Sup-
per: Practically suited to all the
Parts of that Solemn Ordinance.
7th Edition, revised. Edited by
Rey. G. Movuttrrige. Feap. 8vo.,
toned paper, red lines, ant.cl., 4s.

EIKQN BASIAIKH.
THE PORTRAITURE OF HIS
SACRED MAJESTY KING
CHARLES I. in his Solitudes

and Sufferings. Cloth, 5s.

POETRY, δὅο. 18

THE AUTHORIZED EDITIONS OF
THE CHRISTIAN YEAR,

With the Author’s latest Corrections and Additions,

NOTICE.—Messrs. Parker are the sole Publishers of the Editions of the
“‘Christian Year’’ issued with the sanction and under the direction of
the Author’s representatives. All Editions without their imprint are
unauthorized.

ΜΑΙ, 4to. Epirion. 8. d. 32mo. EDITION. 8. ds

Handsomely printed on toned Cloth, limp = yee

paper, with red border lines Cloth παν gilt “edges Ξ 1 6
and initial letters. Cl.extra 10 6 48mo. ΕΡΙΤΙΟΝ.

Demy 8yvo. ΕΡΙΤΙΟΝ. leg voy oF eee a OG
ΟΠ Ὁ τς 60!) Bean . eel 8
ἘΌΟΙΒΟᾺΡ 8yo. ΕΨΡΙΤΙΟΝ. FACSIMILE OF THE Ist EpI-

Cloth . { 2 4 Ἑ 54 6 TION, with a list of the

variations from the Origi-

24mo. Ep1rTion. nal Text which the Author

Cloth . . - 2 0 made in later Editions.
Ditto, with red lines ° > 2 6 2 vols., 12mo., boards Peer et)

The above Editions (except the Facsimile of the First Edition) are kept
in a variety of bindings, the chief of which are Morocco plain, Morocco
Antique, Calf Antique, and Vellum.

By the same Author.

LYRA INNOCENTIUM. Thoughts in Verse on
Christian Children. Thirteenth Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cl., 5s

—————_ 48 mo. edition, limp cloth, 6d.; cloth boards, 1s.

MISCELLANEOUS POEMS BY THE REY. JOHN

KEBLE, M.A., Vicar of Hursley. Third Edition. Feap.,
cloth, 6s.

THE PSALTER, OR PSALMS OF DAVID: In
English Verse. Fourth Edition. Feap., cloth, 6s.
The above may also be had in various bindings.
By the late Rev. ISAAC WILLIAMS.

THE CATHEDRAL; or, The Catholic and Apostolic Church
in England. 32mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.

THE BAPTISTERY ; or, The Way of Eternal Life, with Plates
by Bortius 4 BotsweErt. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.; 32mo.,
cloth, 2s. 6d.

HYMNS translated from the PARISIAN BREVIARY. 32mo.,
cloth, 2s. 6d.

THE CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR. Fcap. 8vo., cl., 5s.; 32mo.,
cloth, 2s. 6d.

THOUGHTS IN PAST YEARS. 32mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.

THE SEVEN DAYS; or, The Old and New Creation. Feap.
8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.

OXFORD. AND 277. STRAND. LONDON.

14 SHRMONS.

THE LATE BISHOP WILBERFORCE.
SERMons preached before the University of Oxford: Second
Series, from 1847 to 1862. By the late SamunL WILBER-
FORCE, LORD BIsHoP OF WINCHESTER. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
Third Series, from 1863 to 1870. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
SERMONS preached on Various Occasions. With a Preface by
the Lord Bishop of Ely. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.

REV, ἘΠ: BY PUSEM 19:19:

PsrocHtaL SERMONS. Vol. I. From Advent to Whitsuntide.
Seventh Edition. 8vo., cloth, 6s.

ParocHIAL SERMONS. Vol. II. Sixth Edition. 8vo., elcth, 6s.

Parocuiat Sermons. Vol. III. Reprinted from the “ Plain
Sermons by Contributors to the ‘Tracts for the Times.’”
Revised Edition, 8vo., cloth, 6s.

PsROCHIAL SERMONS preached and printed on Various Occa-
sions. 8vo., cloth, 6s.

SERMONS preached before the University of Oxford, between
A.D. 1859 and 1872. S8vo., cloth, 6s.

L»NTEN SERMONS, preached chiefly to Young Men at the Uni-
versities, between A.D. 1858—1874. S8vo., cloth, 6s.

[τ ἘΝῈΝ SHORT ADDRESSES during a Retreat of the Companions
of the Love of Jesus, engaged in Perpetual Intercession for
the Conversion of Sinners. 8vo., cloth, 8s. 6d.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY.
SERMONS ON THE BeEatTiTupDES, with others mostly preached
before the University of Oxford; to which is added a Preface
relating to the volume of “ Essays and Reviews.” New
Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.

REV. ἃ. KEBLE,

SERMONS FOR THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. By the Rev. JoHn
KEBLE, Author of “The Christian Year.”

For ADVENT TO CHRISTMAS Eve (46). 8vo., cloth, 6s.
For CHRISTMAS AND EprpHany (48). 8vo., cloth, 6s.
For ΒΕΡΤΙΓΑΘΕΒΙΜΑ TO Lunt. 1 vol., én preparation.
For Lent To PasstontTIDE (46). 8vo., cloth, 6s.
For Hoty WEEK (57). 8vo., cloth, 6s.
For Easter TO Ascenston-Day (48). 8vo., cloth, 6s.
For Ascenston-Day To Trinity SunpDAyY (41). 8vo., cl., 6s.
For Satnts’ Days, (48). 8vo., cloth, 6s.
VILLAGE SERMONS ON THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE. 8vo., cloth,
5s.
SERMONS, OCCASIONAL AND PAROCHIAL. 8vo., cloth, 12s.

JAMES PARKER AND CO.

SERMONS. 15

THE CITY OF THE LOST, AND XIX. OTHER
SHORT ALLEGORICAL SERMONS.
By Watter A. Gray, M.A. (Π.), Vicar of Arksey ;—and B. ΚΈΠΕ
Pearse, M.A. (Φ.), Rector of Ascot Heath. Fourth Edition.
Feap., cloth, 2s. 6d. Cheap Edition, sewed, 1s.

CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRISTIAN
MORALITY.

THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1873. By the Rev. I.
Gregory SmirH, M.A., late Fellow of Brasenose College,
Oxford ; Vicar of Malvern, ὅθ. Second Edition, Crown 8yo.,
cloth, 3s, 6d.

REV. E. MONRO.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF FartH. Eight Plain Sermons. Fcap. 8vo.,
cloth, 2s. 6d.

Plain Sermons on the Book of Common Prayer. Feap. 8vo.,
cloth, 5s.

Historical and Practical Sermons on the Sufferings and Resur-
rection of our Lord. 2 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 10s.

Sermons on New Testament Characters. Feap. 8vo., 4s.

LENTEN SERMONS AT OXFORD.
Re-issue of the Series of Sermons preached at St. Mary’s, &e.

The Series for 1857. | For 1863. 8vo., cloth, 5s. | For 1868. 8vo., cloth, 5s.

8vo., cloth, 5s. | For 1865. 8vo., cloth, 5s, | For 1869. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
For 1858. 8vo., cloth, 5s. | For 1866. 8vo., cloth, 5s. | For 1870-1. 8vo., cloth,
For 1859. 8vo., cloth, 5s. | For 1867. 8vo., cloth, 5s. | 5s.

SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING,
Following the Course of the Christian Seasons. By the Very
Rev. J. W. Buraon, B.D., Dean of Chichester. First Series.

2 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 8s.
SECOND SERIES. 2 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 8s.

RT. REV. J. ARMSTRONG, D.D.
PAROCHIAL SERMONS. By the late Lord Bishop of Grahams-
town. Fifth Edition. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
Sermons on the Fasts and Festivals. Third Edition. Fcap.
8vo., cloth, 5s.

SERMONS FOR THE CHRISTIAN SEASONS,
SFRMONS FOR THE CHRISTIAN SEASONS. First Series. Edited
by Joun ARrMstTRONG, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Grahams.

town. 4 vols., ἔαρ. 8vo., cloth, 10s.
— Second Series. Edited

by the Rev. Joun Barrow, D.D., late Principal of St. Edmund
Hall, Oxford. 4 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 10s.

OXFORD, AND 377, STRAND, LONDON.

THE CLERGYMAN’S
DESK CALENDAR

1878.

HE above consists of pages 2 to 14 and 63

of this CALENDAR, containing the DAILY
AND PROPER LESSONS, &c., and is interleaved
for Memoranda. It will be found convenient
for use on READING DESKS in Churches.

Second Annual Issue, price 2d.

To be obtained of the Publishers of the
DIOCESAN CALENDAR.

Crown 8vo., in roan binding, 12s. ; calf limp, or calfantique, 16s. ;
best morocco, or limp morocco, 18s.

Ghe Serbice-Book of the Church
of Gngland,

Being a New Edition of ‘The Daily Services of the Churoh of
England and Ireland,”

Arranged according to the new Table of Lessons.

The new ‘‘ Prayer-book (Table of Lessons) Act, 1871,” has
necessitated reprinting nearly the whole book, and opportunity
has been taken of still further adding to the improvements.

The Lessons appointed for the Immoveable festivals are
printed entire in the course of the Daily Lessons where they
occur. For the Sundays and Moveable Festivals, and for the
days dependent on them, a table containing fuller references,
with the initial words and ample directions where the Lesson
may be found, is given. Where the Lesson for the Moveable
Feast is not included entire amongst the Daily Lessons, it is
printed in full in its proper place. Also in the part containing
Daily Lessons, greater facilities have been provided for verify-
ing the references.

There are also many modifications in the arrangement,
wherein this Service-book differs from the Prayer-book: the
Order for the Administration of the Holy Communion is printed
as a distinct service, with the Collects, Epistles, and Gospels,
which belong to the same: the Psalms immediately follow Daily
Morning and Evening Prayer: the Morning and Evening Les-
sons also are by this arrangement brought nearer to the Service
to which they belong, while the Occasional Offices are trans-
ferred to the end of the book.

JAMES PARKER AND CO., OXFORD AND LONDON.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Los Angeles

This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.

m L9-20m-7,’61(C1437s4) 444

Il

|

4

=;

SSS

is
fi
Hy

Ze